Directory of USDC Process Servers Used for Serving Summons and Complaints
Listed below are our featured nationwide process service companies. These unique and dependable USDC Process Server are equipped to handle your process service requests anywhere in America. To get started, click on any one or all listed process service companies and get information and quotes within minutes.
If you prefer to speak with local process servers, please scroll down to where you can find process servers by state, county, and city.
Arnie's Process Serving and Court Services
ABC Process and Court Services
Listed Process Servers Serve United States District Court Summons and Complaints in all Federal Jurisdictions
Process Servers used for serving USDC documents are available nationwide to serve process on your behalf. Simply select your desired state where your summons and complaint needs to be served, and you'll find a list of enthusiastic authorized USDC process servers ready to assist you.
Listed USDC Process Servers are authorized to handle service of process on your behalf. Our USDC process servers operate under the guidance of Federal Rule 4 which is explicit and unambiguous with respect their authority and official capacity to represent your United States District Court service of process upon the defendant in your action.
Please be advised an amendment to United States District Court Rule 4 regarding the timing of your Summons was recently enacted.
“United States District Court Rule 4 Summons outlines the process of serving a United States District Court the requirements, changed the amount of time a process server has to serve a defendant. Process servers now have 90 days to serve a defendant, 30 less than the previous 120 that was allowed.”
Process Servers serve USDC Defendants with your Court Issued Summons?
There is a troublesome ambiguity in United States District Court Rule 4. Rule 4(c) that directs: all process is to be served by the marshal, by his deputy, or by a person specially appointed by the court. “This is inaccurate and misleading. You are other options and quite frankly are better more efficient. To provide you with knowledge which applies to your options for serving a Rule Summons, Rule 4(d)(7) authorizes service “in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the district court is held. . . .” And Rule 4(e), which authorizes service beyond the state and service in quasi in rem cases when state law permits such service, directs that “service may be made . . . under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the [state] statute or rule.” State statutes and rules of the kind referred to in Rule 4(d)(7) and Rule 4(e) commonly designate the persons who are to make the service provided for, e.g., a sheriff or a plaintiff. When that is so, may the persons so designated by state law make service, or is service in all cases to be made by a marshal or by one specially appointed under present Rule 4(c)
Directory of Process Serving Services of United States District Court Current Rule 4.
United States District Court Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relates to the issuance and service of process. Subsection (c) authorizes service of process by personnel of the Marshals Service, by a person specially appointed by the Court, or “by a person authorized to serve process in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which the district court is held or in which service is made.” Subsection (d) describes how a summons and complaint must be served and designates those persons who must be served in cases involving specified categories of defendants. Mail service is not directly authorized. Subsection (d)(7), however, authorizes service under the law of the state in which the district court sits upon defendants described in subsections (d)(1) (certain individuals) and (d)(3) (organizations). Thus, if state law authorizes service by mail of a summons and complaint upon an individual or organization described in subsections (d)(1) or (3), then subsection (d)(7) authorizes service by mail for United States district courts in that state.
Reducing the role of marshals for serving a United States District Court Summons
The Supreme Court's proposed modifications of United States District Court Rule 4 were designed to alleviate the burden on the Marshals Service of serving summonses and complaints in private civil actions. Appendix II, at 7 (Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure), 16 (Advisory Committee Note). While the Committee received no complaints about the goal of reducing the role of the Marshals Service, the Court's proposals simply failed to achieve that goal. See House Report No. 97–662, at 2–3 (1982).
The United States District Court proposed Rule 4(c)(2)(B) required the Marshals Service to serve summonses and complaints “pursuant to any statutory provision expressly providing for service by a United States Marshal or his deputy.” One such statutory provision is 28 U.S.C. 569(b), which compels marshals to “execute all lawful writs, process and orders issued under authority of the United States, including those of the courts * * *.” (emphasis added). Thus, any party could have invoked 28 U.S.C. 569(b) to utilize a marshal for service of a summons and complaint, thereby thwarting the intent of the new subsection to limit the use of marshals. The Justice Department acknowledges that the proposed subsection did not accomplish its objectives.
Had 28 U.S.C. 569(b) been inconsistent with proposed Rule 4(c)(2)(B), the latter would have nullified the former under 28 U.S.C. 2072, which provides that “All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.” Since proposed Rule 4(c)(2)(B) specifically referred to statutes such as 28 U.S.C. 569(b), however, the new subsection did not conflict with 28 U.S.C. 569(b) and did not, therefore, supersede it.
H.R. 7154 cures this problem and achieves the desired reduction in the role of the Marshals Service by authorizing marshals to serve summonses and complaints “on behalf of the United States”. By so doing, H.R. 7154 eliminates the loophole in the Court's proposed language and still provides for service by marshals on behalf of the Government.
United States District Court Rule 4 relieved the marshals’ offices of much of the burden of serving the summons. Subdivision (c) eliminates the requirement for service by the marshal's office in actions in which the party seeking service is the United States. The United States, like other civil litigants, is now permitted to designate any person who is 18 years of age and not a party to serve its summons.