Colors+ v. Colors+ Counseling, LLC, et al.

Colors+ · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · December 29, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-00078-PAB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Show Cause seeking to require Douglas Lonero to appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena. The Court held that service by certified mail was improper under the circumstances and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), even if applicable to subpoenas served on corporations, did not authorize service of a subpoena on Lonero individually.

Holdings

  1. Under the circumstances presented, service of the subpoena by certified mail was improper. Rule 45(b)(1) requires delivery of a copy of the subpoena to the named person, and Defendants had not shown that they diligently attempted personal service before using certified mail.
  2. Rule 4(h) did not authorize service of the subpoena by certified mail on Lonero individually because Rule 4(h) applies to corporations, partnerships, and other unincorporated associations subject to suit under a common name, not individuals.
  3. The court declined to issue an order requiring Lonero to appear and show cause because Defendants had not properly served him with the subpoena.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should order Douglas Lonero to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena.
  2. Whether service of the subpoena by certified mail satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1).
  3. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) authorized service of the subpoena by certified mail on Lonero individually.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (16)

  • Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., No. 1:13-cv-928, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17325, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2018)(followed)
  • Hale v. Bunce, No. 1:16-cv-02967, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223578, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2017)(followed)
  • Powell v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00600, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138883, at *7-9 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2010)(considered)
  • McClendon v. TelOhio Credit Union, Inc., No. 2:05-CV-1160, 2006 WL 2380601, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 14, 2006)(followed)
  • Roofers Local 149 Sec. Ben. Trust Fund v. Milbrand Roofing Grp., Inc., No. 05-CV-60218, 2007 WL 2421479, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2007)(followed)
  • Franklin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 09-10947, 2009 WL 3152993, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2009)(considered)
  • OceanFirst Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 752, 753-54 (E.D. Mich. 2011)(followed)
  • In re Dennis, 330 F.3d 696, 704 (5th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 27, 37 (D.D.C. 2004)(followed)
  • Klockner Namasco Holdings Corp. v. Daily Access.Com, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 685, 687 (N.D. Ga. 2002)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…