Arthur v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding service was improper because plaintiffs did not refute an affidavit that the attorney served was not authorized to receive service of process, even though the attorney accepted the service
• concluding plaintiff's service of corporate defendant did not comply with Tennessee law where there was “no probative proof in the record showing that [person served] was a corporate officer, managing agent, or other agent of [defendant] . . . .”
• finding service on attorney insufficient despite plaintiff’s contentions that attorney had represented defendants “in matters relating to the underlying facts of this litigation”
• finding service on attorney insufficient where “plaintiffs ha[d] not come forward with any proof that [defendant] specifically authorized [attorney] to act [as] its agent to receive service of process”
• “[SJervice of process is not a prerequi site to the defendants exercising their right of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).