Summary: Shaquan Lasane commenced this pro se action asserting claims against multiple defendants (some also appearing pro se) arising out of a state court custody proceeding in Wake County, North Carolina, bringing claims under the Fair Debt Collections Act, the False Claims Act, the … E.D.N.C.: Lesane v. Breeden- Rooker-Feldman bars Consumer Rights and Sovereign Citizen Claims regarding Child Custody Read More » The post E.D.N.C.: Lesane v. Breeden- Rooker-Feldman bars Consumer Rights and Sovereign Citizen Claims regarding Child Custody appeared first on .

Summary: The Fourth Circuit found that, in denying her Social Security Disability claim, the Administrative Law Judge had erred by misreading the severity findings in two of the three medical opinions and also erred by failing to consider each of … 4th Cir.: Tripplett v. Saul- Denial of Social Security Claim Read More » The post 4th Cir.: Tripplett v. Saul- Denial of Social Security Claim appeared first on .

Summary: Kwamir Bradley, appearing pro se, brought suit against Progress Residential after it sent a notice of default asserting her owed amount of $10,119.89, alleging that its failure to disclose federal law protections in the original lease agreement violated the … W.D.N.C.: Bradley v. Progress Residential Prop. Manager, LLC- Failure to Brief 12(b)(6) Motion Read More » The post W.D.N.C.: Bradley v. Progress Residential Prop. Manager, LLC- Failure to Brief 12(b)(6) Motion appeared first on .

 Judge Michael Parker was sworn in as the newest Bankruptcy Judge in the Western District of Texas on November 1, 2021. He was a law clerk to Judge Ronald B. King, the judge who he replaced and practiced in San Antonio with Norton Rose Fulbright for many years. He was kind enough to answer some written questions that I sent him and I did some research on my own. Here are some things you should know about Judge Parker. Judge Parker holds four degrees: B.S. in engineering from the University of Colorado; M.S. in engineering, M.B.A., and J.D. from U.T. Austin. He graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1993. He clerked for Judge King from 1993-1995 and worked for Norton Rose Fulbright for the entire time from when he left his clerkship until he took the bench. He is Board Certified in both Business and Consumer Bankruptcy. He was a founding member of the Larry E. Kelly Inn of Court and is currently its president.                                                 Judge Parker was the vice chairman of the San Antonio Legal Services Association (SALSA), a pro bono service organization that provides volunteer attorney free legal services to those with limited means. He has been active in SALSA and its predecessor for many years and volunteered his time on numerous occasions to represent clients pro bono, including representing a debtor pro bono in a chapter 12 case.I have slightly edited the  Q & A for clarity.Q: How did you make the decision to attend law school? Was this something you had always planned? A: I had no plan to attend law school. I planned to be an engineer. While I enjoyed the engineering, I changed my life plans while working as a construction project manager in Dallas. When I looked ahead to where I would be in 5-10 years, my job appeared to be a lifetime of travel from project to project, which appealed to a younger me, but didn’t fit my long-term plans. I investigated other options and decided on law school because I was fascinated by the law, and a law degree appeared to offer me more options than other paths. Q: Did you take a bankruptcy class in law school? A Yes. My love for bankruptcy started with Jay Westbrook’s secured credit course and subsequent bankruptcy course. I also took the bankruptcy practice course/lab, which was taught by Kaaran Thomas and her then ex-husband Matt Hoffman. At that time, Kaaran principally represented creditors and Matt principally represented debtors. The class required that each student propose and confirm a plan of reorganization. Q:  Did you know that you wanted to practice bankruptcy law when you were in law school? A: Not when I entered, but by the time I graduated, I was pretty sure. Construction and criminal law still had some appeal. My time clerking for Judge King sealed the deal. I turned down a clerkship with the Court of Criminal Appeals to clerk for Judge King. Q:  How did your background in engineering prepare you to practice law? A:  Engineers and lawyers think similarly. Both professions solve problems for clients. My engineering background taught me how to approach and solve problems for clients. Q: What did you learn clerking from Judge King? A; I learned what good lawyers do and don’t do inside and outside the court. Q: Where have you practiced since concluding your clerkship? How would you describe your practice?A: For 26 years I had the honor of practicing at Fulbright & Jaworski (which became Norton Rose Fulbright in 2013). My practice varied over time. Early on, I mostly represented several chapter 7 trustees, various commercial and bankruptcy litigants (large and small), landlords, unsecured creditors’ committees, chapter 11 trustees, large creditors, and individual (before BAPCPA in 2005) and corporate debtors in chapter 11 and chapter 7 matters. Over time I was also fortunate to represent several large, mid-stream oil & gas companies in (i) large chapter 11 matters and litigation, (ii) large, distressed acquisitions, and (iii) some international matters. Q:  Did you have a law firm mentor you would like to mention? A: I had several law firm mentors who took me under their wings and taught me how to practice law, but a vast majority of my time was spent working with Jack Partain, Jr. and Steve Peirce on projects Jack brought to the firm. Other mentors are too numerous to mention. Q: What are some of the most important cases that you have worked on and why? A: I represented the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Case No. 21- 30725 (S.D. Texas, Judge Jones) in its chapter 11 case triggered by the events of the February 2020 Texas freeze. The case contains a plethora of fascinating legal issues. The case is important because its outcome has implications for the entire ERCOT power market, which has implications for the State of Texas. I represented the largest unsecured creditor in the In re O. W. Bunker U.S.A., LLC, In re O.W. Bunker North American, LLC, In re O.W. Bunker Holding North America, Inc. bankruptcy cases administratively consolidated under Case No. 5:14-bk-51720 (D. Conn.). The world-wide O.W. Bunker enterprise was the largest bunker fuel supplier in the world when it collapsed in November of 2014. The U.S. O.W. Bunker bankruptcies triggered the “arresting” of the multi-million dollar vessels which had purchased bunker fuel at ports throughout the world. Maritime law allows a vendor who provides “necessaries” for a vessel, to recover against the vessel in rem for payment. The case and related adversary and arrest proceedings spanned five years, multiple U.S. district courts, multiple foreign courts, including Britain’s highest appellate court, two U.S. circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court before it was globally resolved. The case had international and national legal implications for the entire bunker fuel and shipping industry. I represented the creditors committee and then the chapter 7 trustee in the notorious chapter 11 and then chapter 7 case of Franklin Wright, Jr. At one time, Mr. Wright had the most lucrative personal injury litigation practice in San Antonio. The charismatic Mr. Wright filed his initial case to deal with multiple legal problems stemming from his failure to pay his income taxes, his hiding of his assets, and his borrowing of money from his personal injury clients. Those problems triggered a federal indictment and Texas disbarment proceedings. I represented the trustee in a lawsuit against Mr. Wright’s former law partner, who absconded in the dead of night on Christmas eve, with Mr. Wright’s lucrative contingency fee clients and files. Mr. Wright was our key witness. The legal precedent set in the case preceded the collapse of several large law firms nationally, which also had to deal with the tension between the value of contingency fee matters to a bankruptcy estate and the right of a client to choose their own counsel. Q:  If the answer is different, what are some of the most personally significant cases you have worked on and why? (i.e., for me personally, one of the most significant cases I worked on was a pro bono child custody case where my work allowed an abused child to be adopted by her Uncle and grow up to get married and have a family of her own). A: I have done substantial pro bono work during my career. My first pro bono matter was referred to me by Volunteer Legal Services in Austin for a family farm in rural Texas. VLS referred the case to me the first month I started working for Fulbright, and just after I had clerked for Judge King. VLS thought the farm clients needed to be filed as a chapter 12 case and no one at VLS had any chapter 12 experience. That case involved threatened litigation and a negotiated settlement with the local bank that allowed the farmers to keep their homestead, some grazing and farming land and some cattle. I received a tin of homemade cookies that Christmas, and for the next couple years as my compensation. As a result of my experience with that case, I regularly took on pro bono cases and served as my then firm’s San Antonio Office pro bono chair for two decades.Q: What are some of the things you did to prepare for taking the bench since your appointment?   A: For many months, I spent countless hours watching (via Webex) the dockets of Judge King, Judge Gargotta, Judge Mott and Judge Davis. After some of the hearings I asked each judge questions about what they did and why. I met with the chapter 13 trustees and multiple consumer debtors’ attorneys to ask about their concerns and what the court might do better in their opinion. I studied all the key Fifth Circuit chapter 13 opinions as recommended and suggested by the Chapter 13 trustees and by debtors’ counsel. I actively participated (via Zoom) in Phase 1 of what is colloquially referred to as “baby judges’ school.” I met (via Zoom) with the Waco Bankruptcy Bar Associations to ask about their concerns and what the court might do better in their opinion. I am active in multiple bankruptcy bar groups, whose members I consulted regarding their thoughts about what I should do to prepare for the bench. Q: Do you find the constant sniping about Red Raiders and Aggies to be tiresome? (Please don’t answer that question). A: My children attended or are attending UT, Rice, Texas A&M, UTHSCSA, Texas Tech University, Savanah College of Art and Design and Utah Valley University. I am accustomed to, and a fan of, university rivalries. Q:  Are there any practice areas that you are likely to encounter as a judge that were not part of your law firm experience and how do you intend to prepare for those areas? A: Yes. Chapter 13 practice. I focused most of my time before taking the bench on preparing for the chapter 13 practice – both by studying the practice area and by consulting with those who regularly practice in that area. I also focused on the bthanks est practices of the judges I know and judges I have appeared before.Q: What is a personal challenge that you have had to overcome in your life?A: I worked through each of my college experiences to pay for those experiences. Q: What do you enjoy doing when you are not working? A: When not working, I enjoy spending time with my wife, my children and my family. We play lots of board and card games when we gather. Pre-COVID, my wife and I took several dance classes and were enjoying various dance halls in central Texas. I used to spend all my spare time (i) at the soccer fields coaching, refereeing and watching, and (ii) at my children’s non-soccer events – swimming, UIL, debate, choir, theatre, scouts, Latin club, etc.As a former soccer referee myself, I can note some parallels and some distinctions between refereeing and judging which may help Judge Parker in his new role. Under the Bankruptcy Act, judges were known as referees. Both referees and bankruptcy judges apply laws, although there are only 17 laws of soccer. Referees have assistant referees to help them while judges have law clerks. However, the biggest distinction is that judges sit behind a bench while a referee has to make his decisions while running up and down the field with the players. Many thanks to Judge Parker for taking the time to give these thoughtful responses. I hope that you find these answers helpful as you prepare to appear before him. 

Summary: In early 2018, Donette Thomas began the process of purchasing a home and was pre-approved for a mortgage though Movement Mortgage for $1,600,000.00, then making an offer to purchase, having the home inspected, and paying earnest and due diligence … M.D.N.C.: Thomas v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.- Causal Nexus for FCRA Action Read More » The post M.D.N.C.: Thomas v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.- Causal Nexus for FCRA Action appeared first on .

 By now, we have grown used to Zoom hearings, Zoom mediations and Zoom depositions. However, a case I heard discussed at the ABI Winter Leadership Conference points out that as ubiquitous as these technologically assisted interactions are, they can pose both challenges and perils to the unprepared. In Agility Holdings, LLC v. North Shore Healthcare, LLC, No. 18-CV-8721, Dkt. #77 (Wisc. Cir. Court, Milwaukee County, Branch 18, 1/22/21), an attorney was taking a deposition by Zoom. During the deposition, his legal assistant received an email which was apparently intended for the witness. The email indicated that the attorney who was defending the deposition was communicating with the witness and helping him to answer questions. The attorney who was taking the deposition obtained a time-stamped transcript of the deposition and then propounded discovery asking for all communications between the attorney and the witness during times when the deposition was not on a break. The resulting discovery revealed that the attorney had been coaching the witness on how to answer questions with their theory of the case. The deposing attorney then sought death penalty sanctions against the other side. The offending lawyer admitted his transgression and confessed to a lapse of judgment. The Court did not strike the pleadings, but did award sanctions against the attorney individually payable to the Court clerk, ordered the firm to reimburse the opposing party for its costs and precluded the witness from testifying at trial to any matters on which he/she had been coached during the deposition. One takeaway from this case is that an attorney's opening sequence should (1) ask the witness whether he is relying on any notes or other documents, (2) instruct the witness not to communicate with anyone except during breaks, (3) instruct the witness to move his phone to a location where he could not consult it during the deposition and (4) instruct the witness to close email, chat messaging and any other means of electronic communication. Acknowledgement: This case was discussed in connection with the panel Match Wits With the Experts! An Ethics Game Show Featuring the Audience. The panelists were Prof. Nancy Rapoport, Claire Wu, Tom Horan and Michael P. Richman. This was Mr. Richman's case. Because the opinion is unpublished, I am relying on the panel discussion for the particulars. Any inaccuracies in describing the case are due to my ability to listen and remember.

Can Bankruptcy Stop Wage Garnishment? The short answer is yes in most cases. However, there are exceptions every person  suffering wage garnishment should know and prepare for if they believe they might file a bankruptcy case. If your wages are being garnished, call our Philadelphia bankruptcy attorneys for help. Your consultation is free of charge, and we will explain your options to you and whether filing bankruptcy will stop your wage garnishment and discharge that debt. Wage Garnishment Explained When a worker’s wages are “garnished,” a sum gets deducted from the worker’s net earnings to partially satisfy a money judgment. The creditor or support obligee must obtain a court order and serve it upon the worker and the worker’s employer. The employer is bound to comply with the court order, deduct the amount specified from net earnings, and submit the deducted funds to the specified account. If the debt is related to child support, spousal support, income tax, or federal student loans, these obligees do not have to get a court order to garnish wages but may do so through operation of law. State law dictates how much of a worker’s wages and what types of income can be garnished. The following types of income are exempt from garnishment: Social Security benefitsSSI and SSDI Food stamps Governmental rental assistanceUnemployment benefitsWorkers’ compensation benefitsStudent loansVeteran’s benefitsChild supportCivil service retirement benefitsMost other pensions Most states allow a creditor to obtain a wage garnishment order for any type of debt. However, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas do not permit wage garnishment except for child support, federal student loans, tax debt, and court-ordered fines and restitution. Pennsylvania Law also allows for wages to be garnished for monies owed arising out of a lease where the Landlord holds a judgment. Even if you live in Pennsylvania, but work in another state, if a judgment is entered against you in a different state, the judgment creditor in that case may be able to garnish your wages. Bankruptcy Does Stop Garnishment The moment you file bankruptcy, the “automatic stay” is in place. The automatic stay “stays” or stops all collection efforts, including letters, phone calls, lawsuits, and yes, wage garnishments. When the automatic stay is in place, your creditors may not continue to garnish your wages, and they may not seek wage garnishment orders against you. Automatic Stay in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy The automatic stay is a powerful tool for debtors in that it halts all collection efforts, pending litigation, and evictions. However, a debtor may not invoke the automatic stay without limits, which were imposed by Congress to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy process. Multiple Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Filings If the debtor has filed bankruptcy in the previous year, the automatic stay lasts only 30 days. A debtor can obtain an extension if they show the Court that they are not using the bankruptcy system in bad faith. If the debtor filed two or more cases in the previous year, there will be no automatic stay. In order to get the automatic stay, you need to go before the Bankruptcy Judge to show why you should be entitled to the Automatic Stay. If the Judge is satisfied, he issues an Order imposing the automatic stay. Wage Garnishment After Filing Bankruptcy If the debt your garnishment pays is dischargeable, the wage garnishment will not resume when your bankruptcy case closes and the automatic stay lifts. If a creditor starts garnishing wages on a discharged debt, that is a violation of the discharge order and they can be subject to Court sanctions. If the debt your garnishment was paying was nondischargeable, such as past due child support, alimony, government fines or fees, student loan debt, or nondischargeable income taxes, the wage garnishment may resume when your bankruptcy case closes. Timing Your Bankruptcy Claim to Stop Garnishment & Get Wages Back For credit card debt, medical bills, and personal loans, the creditor must serve you with notice that your wages are to be garnished. You should speak with a bankruptcy attorney as soon as you receive that notice to plan a course of action that prevents the garnishment from starting. If the wage garnishment started or began without notice to you, as in the case of support and tax arrears, you should talk with a bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible. If you file quickly, you can stop the garnishment by giving a copy of your docket report to your employer and to the creditor.  You may also be able to get a refund of the garnished wages. The Bankruptcy Court considers garnished wages “preferential treatment” of that creditor in that they get more of their debt paid than others of your creditors. You or the Trustee can file a preference action and get garnished money back as long as: The garnishment happened within 90 days of the bankruptcy filing;Those wages would be otherwise exempt in bankruptcy;The creditor took at least $600The debtor exempted those wages in their bankruptcy petition Be patient – this process can take several months. Wage Garnishment After Your Bankruptcy Ends Creditors cannot garnish wages on debt that was discharged in your bankruptcy. However, those creditors with high priority claims, such as support obligees and the government, can restart or continue garnishing your wages. Hopefully, with much of your unsecured debt discharged, bankruptcy has made your remaining financial obligations more affordable. Talk with a Bankruptcy Lawyer About Your Wage Garnishment As soon as you know or think that your wages may be garnished, contact us for your free, no-obligation consultation. We can tell you what debts will be discharged entirely and advise you as to how to handle your nondischargeable debt. We’ve helped thousands of clients get a fresh start – let us help you too. The post Can Bankruptcy Stop Wage Garnishment? appeared first on David M. Offen, Attorney at Law.

   In a case touching on a number of legal issues, Judge Grossman granted in part a motion to dismiss a fraudulent conveyance action, but with leave to amend, in In re Bal Harbour Quarzo, LLC, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3298, Case No 18-11793-SMG, Adv No 20-01079-SMG (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 3 Dec 2021).   The plaintiff in the adversary proceeding was the liquidating trustee of a trust.  He filed an 18 count complaint against a number of defendants related to a failed real estate development project.    the court first examined whether it had personal jurisdiction against the defendants.  Two defendants challenged such jurisdiction.  The Court initially looked to Rule 7004(f) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which provides:If the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service in accordance with this rule or the subdivisions of Rule 4 F. R. Civ. P. made applicable by these rules is effective to establish personal jurisdiction over the person of any defendant with respect to a case under the Code or a civil proceeding arising under the Code, or arising in or related to a case under the Code.   Neither defendant had challenged service of process under Rule 7004.  The Court indicated it must determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States.  This requires a finding that the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the US such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.1  General jurisdiction exists as to a foreign defendant when their affiliates with the form are so continuous and systematic as to render theme essentially at home in the forum, and there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy.  As neither defendant submitted any evidence that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court found that Plaintiff had made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction existed.  This including showing as to one defendant that he was a US Citizen with a Florida drivers license and a social security number, and is registered to vote in Florida.  As to the other defendant Plaintiff alleged she had a social security number, holds title to real property in the US, continues to maintain financial and other business relationships in the US,  and was a defacto manager of the debtor.  Such allegations were sufficient to make a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction.  The defendant's also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  This includes a claim to avoid a transfer from an alleged alter ego of the debtor.  In order to recover transfers allegedly made by an alter ego, the alter ego must be named as a defendant by the trustee, served with process, and provided a full opportunity to respond to the alter ego allegations.  Substantively, in order to pierce the corporate veil, the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) a shareholder dominated and controlled the corporation to such an extent that the corporation's existence was in fact nonexistent and the shareholders were in fact alter egos of the corporation; 2) the corporate form must have been used fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and 3) the fraudulent or improper use of the corporate form caused injury to the claimant.2  As the plaintiff cited to the wrong case involving a default order determining that one entity: Synergy Entities was deemed to be the debtor's alter ego, but that does not establish that another entity: Synergy Capital, was an alter ego.  Thus the motions to dismiss were granted on this basis, with leave to amend.  The next issue was the four year statute of limitations under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Fla. Stat. §726.110(1).  While this transfer occurred more than four years prior to the suit, plaintiff points to an exception allowing a claim if brought within one year after the transfer or obligation could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.   Plaintiff asserts he satisfies this exception as he was appointed state court receiver for debtor within one year of the bankruptcy filing date.  However, to state a claim under the Bankruptcy Code for fraudulent transfers, 11 U.S.C. §544(b)(1) Plaintiff must identify an unsecured (triggering) creditor that would have had actual standing to seek to avoid an recover the applicable transfers as of the petition date.3  As no such triggering creditor was alleged, the motion to dismiss must be granted, again with leave to file an amended complaint identifying such creditor.1 Johnson v. Lovato (In re Jimenez), 627 B.R. 536, 544-45 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2021).↩2 In re Xenerga, Inc., 449 B.R. 594, 598-99 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011).↩3 Furr v. T.D. Bank,N.A. (In re Rollaguard Sec., LLC), 570 B.R. 859, 881 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2017). ↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, Fl 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankrutpcy.com

Walking out to your driveway or street to find your vehicle missing is a horrible way to start your day. If you were behind on your monthly loan payments, your car was probably not stolen. It was repossessed. Your lender is not required to give you any notice before taking your car. Lenders have this […] The post Can You Get Your Car Back After it is Repossessed in Pennsylvania appeared first on .

Knowing when to answer a lawsuit is important to avoid a default judgment. However, different types of courts have different rules for how to serve a complaint and when the answer is due. While I have long known about the rule for Texas state courts, I did not realize that federal bankruptcy courts and district courts have different rules. Bankruptcy Court Service in bankruptcy court is governed by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7004 and Official Form 2500A. In bankruptcy court, the summons may be served by first class mail and nationwide service is allowed. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7004(b) and (d). The answer is due within 30 days after issuance of the summons. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7012(a). In order to keep plaintiffs from sitting on a summons and letting the time run out, a summons must be served within seven days from issuance. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7004(e). Thus, when calculating an answer date in bankruptcy court, the answer is always due based on when the summons is issued. However, if the summons is not timely served, the plaintiff must obtain a new summons and start over. Federal CourtService in U.S. District Court is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and Official Form AO 440. In District Court, the summons may be served by any means allowed by the state, by delivering a copy of the summons to the defendant, by "leaving a copy . . . at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there" or by delivering a copy to the person's agent for service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). Thus, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate personal service unless state law allows a different method. An answer in district court is due within twenty-one days after being served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). Thus, the deadline in district court is nominally shorter than in bankruptcy court but runs from the date of service. Texas State Court In Texas state court, service may be by delivery to the defendant or by certified mail or registered mail, return receipt requested. Tex.R.Civ.P. 106(a). While the rule is not explicit, cases governing substituted service suggest that when service is done by certified mail, the defendant must actually sign the return receipt for service to be effective. If regular service is not effective, the plaintiff can file a motion supported by an affidavit stating the attempts to serve the defendant and where the defendant can "probably" be found. Upon a proper motion, the court may authorize substituted service by leaving the summons with a person over the age of 16 years at the location specified in the affidavit or "in any other manner, including electronically by social media, email or other technology, that the statement or other evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit." Tex.R.Civ.P. 106(b). Thus, Texas state court is the most restrictive for initial attempts at service but allows greater flexibility once service has been unsuccessful. Of course, substituted service is subject to court approval prior to service.    The return of service must be on file for at least ten days prior to taking a default judgment. Tex.R.Civ.P. 107(h).  In Texas state court, an answer is due by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday which is at least twenty days after service.  Tex.R.Civ.P. 99(b). Comparing the Different RulesNon-bankruptcy practitioners and defendants are often surprised that a lawsuit can be served by placing the summons and the complaint in regular first class mail. Of the three methods for service, service by first class mail is the easiest to accomplish. However, because there is not a record of someone receiving the summons, it is easier for a defendant to dispute that they were actually served. Unless the plaintiff carefully researches where to serve the summons, it is possible to obtain ineffective service that may be set aside later. U.S. District Court and Texas state court both rely primarily on personal service and measure the answer date from the date of service. It is harder to serve a defendant in these cases but service, once obtained, is likely to stand up.  There are a lot of permutations and special circumstances I did not discuss since I just wanted to hit the high points here. The U.S. government gets more time to answer in federal court and Texas has various forms of citation by publication to deal with unusual situations.