Kelsey Lemen v. Andrew A. Woellner

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas holds that plaintiff Kelsey Lemen did not properly serve defendant Andrew A. Woellner under Kansas law. Rather than dismissing the action, the court quashes service and permits plaintiff to re-serve defendant and file proof of service by May 18, 2026. The court also denies plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, expedited consideration, and sealing as moot or unwarranted.

Holdings

1. Lemen's certified-mail service was invalid because she mailed process to Woellner's business address without first filing the return of service required for service at an individual's business address after service at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode is refused or unclaimed.
2. Because the service defect was curable and the time for service had not expired, the court denied the Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, quashed service, and granted Lemen an opportunity to re-serve Woellner.
3. The court denied Lemen's motion for a preliminary injunction because Woellner had not been properly served and the court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
4. The court denied Lemen's motions to expedite because docket management is within the court's discretion and the court had addressed the case in the ordinary course.
5. The court denied Lemen's motion to seal as moot because the requested document had already been permanently sealed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lemen's pre-removal certified-mail service at Woellner's business UPS mailbox complied with Kansas law governing service on an out-of-state individual.
2. Whether defective but curable service required dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), or instead warranted quashing service and allowing re-service.
3. Whether the court could issue a preliminary injunction against Woellner before he had been properly served.
4. Whether Lemen was entitled to expedited consideration of her preliminary-injunction motion.
5. Whether Lemen's motion to seal should be denied as moot because the document already had been permanently sealed.

Disposition

other