Legal Opinion
Rogers v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 23, 2015No. Civil Action No. 2014-1650PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
A federal court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a defendant unless he is properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff Charles H. Rogers, Jr., attempted to serve Defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 689, AFL-CIO (“Local 689”) via certified mail, but mistakenly sent the summons and complaint to the address of a related but different entity, Amalgamated Transit Union International. Rogers’ counsel later had a telephone conversation with Local 689’s counsel, who purportedly…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004
- John Mann v. David CastielCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2012
- Eccles v. National Semiconductor Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rogers v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689District Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Leguizamo v. CostcoDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2024
- Middleton v. PrattDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2022