Burbank v. Illinois Central Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even though pro se party attempted service by mail, the federal rules of procedure and the Pennsylvania rules of service require service by someone not a party to the action and personally mailing the complaint was not proper service
• “Filing an amended complaint does not restart the clock for serving defendants.”
• while defendant’s secretary can accept defendant’s mail, this fact does not establish that the secretary is defendant’s agent for accepting service of process
• burden is on plaintiff to show signatory was the defendant’s authorized agent and the plaintiff provided no information regarding who the signatories were or what their relationship was to the defendant
• “There is no exception for [the rule requiring service of original process to be accomplished by an adult who is not a party to the action] for service effectuated via mail or when the plaintiff is pro se.”
• “The Court notes that Plaintiff did not provide a signed return receipt for the summons mailed on September 10, 2018 and therefore did not meet the requirement that process be mailed to the defendant by mail requiring a signed return receipt.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).