SDAT Service: Triandafilou v. Williesco

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog delves into Maryland appellate opinions in civil litigation cases, shedding light on issues pertinent to medical malpractice cases. In this post, we dissect the legal issue of the good faith standard in attempted service of process before serving SDAT. The case in focus is the Appellate Court of Maryland’s June 4, 2025, unreported opinion in Triandafilou Investment Group, LLC v. Williesco Services LLC, No. 0713.

Factual Background

This case involved litigation between two companies over alleged nonpayment for services. The plaintiff filed a document stating that they attempted service of process at the SDAT address for the defendant’s registered agent three times. There was no response at the door each time. (Op. at 3).

The plaintiff then filed a declaration stating it did substitute service of process on SDAT under Rule 2-124(o). The plaintiff also requested an order of default. There were multiple ways in which the service and order of default did not comply with the rules. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County held a hearing and then entered a default judgment against the defendant. Afterward, the defendant filed motions to vacate the judgment based on improper service, and the circuit court denied them. The defendant appealed. (Id. at 4-6).

Appellate Court of Maryland Good Faith Attempted Service of Process Before Serving SDAT

The Appellate Court focused on the good faith standard for attempts at service of process. Maryland Rule 2-124(o)(3) applies:

Service may be made upon a limited liability company by serving two copies of the summons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it, together with the requisite fee, upon the State Department of Assessments and Taxation if (iii) two good faith attempts on separate days to serve the resident agent have failed. (Id. at 9). 

The issue concerned what constitutes “good faith” attempts. The Appellate Court noted that this standard can vary based on the circumstances. (Id. at 10). In this case, the court found that the declaration was insufficient to establish two good-faith attempts at service for the following reasons:

• The first attempt at service was on a Sunday. Attempting the service of a SDAT business resident agent at the business location on Sunday does not constitute a good faith attempt. 
• On the other two dates, the declaration did not state:
  • The times service was attempted (so it was unclear whether it was during regular business hours). 
  • Whether the server knocked on the door
  • How many times
  • How long did he wait
  • Whether he took other steps to elicit a response
  • If he looked for another entrance
  • Whether he posted contact information so that the defendant would know service a party was attempting service
  • Whether he called any publicly available phone numbers to get information to attempt service.

(Id. at 10-11).

Consequently, the Appellate Court ruled that the circuit court denying the defendant’s motion to vacate was an abuse of discretion. This ruling underscores the court’s strict adherence to the good faith standard in service of process. (Id. at 11-12).

Commentary By Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Good Faith Attempted Service of Process Before Serving SDAT

This case clearly illustrates how the legal system can impose more stringent requirements on a statutory term than what may be apparent from the statute’s language. The statute mandates two good-faith attempts at service before serving SDAT. A party might believe it has met this requirement by sending a process server to a business twice. However, this opinion, and others from the Maryland appellate courts, reveal that the good faith standard is more intricate than it seems.

In cases like this, the appellate courts often delve into the circumstances. They identify additional steps the process server could have taken to ensure a more thorough attempt to serve the papers. This examination underscores the significant role that a party should play in assessing its service attempts and the documents submitted to the court. Failure to meet the good faith standard identified by the court could impede the party’s efforts to pursue the litigation.

Cases of Evasion of Service

One of the appellate court’s comments in this case did not fully acknowledge the challenges that plaintiffs sometimes face. The court suggested that the process server could have left contact information for the defendant. However, it’s important to recognize that defendants sometimes try to evade service, which can complicate a plaintiff’s attempt to start a lawsuit. Leaving contact information could potentially reveal the identity of the serving party to an evading defendant, which is not a risk that the courts should expect a process server to take.

The goal of the service of process is to provide actual notice of a lawsuit to a defendant. It is remarkable how frequently defendants claim not to be aware of the litigation despite many attempts to notify them through service, mail, and other means. However, they claim to discover it only when the court enters judgment. A plaintiff can avoid these frustrations by following the good faith standard for attempted service before serving SDAT, and the court should uphold any default judgment.

You can read about another case on the good faith standard in service of process: Mullen v. Thomas 2

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.