Email Service: Mullen v. Thomas 1
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog also covers other Maryland personal injury cases in which issues arise that can also occur in medical malpractice cases. In Part 1, I discuss whether email service process is an appropriate alternative means of service. The April 22, 2025, Appellate Court of Maryland’s unreported opinion in Mullen v. Thomas (No. 679) is the case.
This case involves a defamation claim filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. (Op. at 1). The plaintiff repeatedly attempted service of process on the defendant at two properties without success. (Id. at 2-3). The plaintiff’s lawyer then hired a company to research the address. (Id. at 2-3).
The plaintiff then filed a motion for service of process on the defendant by email under Rule 2-121(c). The motion identified an email address that the defendant used in connection with the subject matter of the case. (Id. at 3). It also stated that a land records search for a current address was unsuccessful. (Id. at 4).
The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had made a good faith effort to serve the defendant and that mailing to the last known address would be impracticable. The court specifically allowed service of process by email, mailing the documents, and leaving copies at the two properties. (Id. at 5).
The plaintiff filed an affidavit of service of process by email and certified mail. When the defendant did not respond, the plaintiff filed a request for an order of default under Rule 2-613. (Id. at 5-6).
Default
The court entered an order of default and sent notice of the order and a hearing to the first property. (Id. at 7). These papers were returned undeliverable. (Id. at 7-8).
The court held an ex parte hearing on damages and entered a judgment of $75,000 for the plaintiff. (Id. at 8). The court mailed the judgment to the first property, which the postal service returned as undeliverable. (Id.).
Nine months later, the defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 2-535(b) based on improper service. He stated that his address differed from the two properties where the plaintiff attempted service. The defendant also said that he lived in Virginia for over two years, most of the time during the court proceedings. He stated he did not receive the email service of process and provided possible technological reasons. The defendant said he learned of the judgment when someone told him the plaintiff had said the defendant owed him money. The court denied the motion as untimely. (Id. at 9).
The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 2-535 and CJP 6-408, arguing a mistake. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that she complied with the alternative service and attaching several emails sent to the defendant by the plaintiff and court. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. (Id. at 10).
Appellate Court of Maryland on Service of Process by Email
Before the Appellate Court addressed whether the plaintiff established grounds for alternative service, the court discussed the defendant’s argument that email service is not allowed under Rule 2-121. The defendant provided no support for his argument. (Id. at 13).
The Appellate Court did not locate any Maryland decision on this issue. The court noted that Rule 2-121(c) provides that the court may order any other means of service deemed appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The court then concluded that this language permits service by email service of process in proper circumstances. (Id. at 14).
The Appellate Court found persuasive other courts that have determined that email is a proper method of alternative service when conventional methods have failed, and the plaintiff has shown that email is reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice. (Id. at 14-16).
The Appellate Court’s ruling underscores the legal system’s flexibility. Accordingly, it affirms that a court has the discretion to authorize alternative service of process by email under Rule 2-121(c) in the appropriate case.
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Service of Process by Email
The court’s decision to recognize email as an appropriate alternative service of process in Maryland is a significant legal development. Email has become a powerful tool to ensure a defendant receives actual notice in today’s communication landscape.
However, the court concluded that this was not an appropriate case for alternative means of service. I discuss that holding in Part 2 of this Blog post.
Actual Notice
Because of its rulings, the Appellate Court did not need to address the defendant’s contention that he did not get actual notice by email. However, this is an interesting issue that could arise in other cases. After all, actual notice, which means the defendant is aware of the legal proceedings and their implications, is the goal of the service of process.
The evidence in this case indicated multiple email attempts at service of process by email by the plaintiff and the court.
Defense Contentions
The defendant claimed he did not get the email. He identified several possible reasons, including (1) possible filtration into Spam or Junk mail due to virus protection settings; (2) the possibility of his Internet provider virus protection blocking emails with large attachments; (3) rules for mailbox folders may have sent the email to a folder instead of his inbox; and (4) his Outlook email client may have been offline due to intermittent issues with internet connection, necessitating the exchange of routers several times. (Id. at 9).
These reasons raise questions. 1 -The defendant did not state whether he goes through junk emails to determine if any legitimate emails landed there or the length of time that junk emails stay in his email system. 3 should result in the emails being in his system. 2 and 4 will often result in the sender receiving an error notice. However, there is no mention of that happening here.
When a court allows email service of process on a defendant, the court must scrutinize the defendant’s claim that they did not receive emails. This commitment to upholding proper service is essential for the future of legal proceedings.
You can also read other Blog posts on procedure.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.