December 20, 2007
Mr. Jeffrey Mervis
Mervis & Associates, LLC
1 Monroe Street, Suite 608
Rockville, MD 20850
Sent via email ( firstname.lastname@example.org), fax (301-762-0229)
REF: Motions to quash service of process and dismiss complaint (trace numbers ED301J020065782, ED301J020065781, and ED301J020065780) for C.A. Number: 2007 CA 007641 B
Dear Mr. Mervis,
I am writing in response to the December 10 motions that you filed related to my lawsuit against your clients, which I received yesterday.
With all due respect, I would like to recommend that we stick to arguing the merits of the case itself, rather than wasting the Court's, your, and my time with such motions. If you would prefer to continue to engage in this level of exchange, I certainly can and will pay legal counsel, process servers, or others to try to ensure that details are addressed to your satisfaction. However, I would like to suggest that this issue can be resolved in a much simpler, less time- and money-consuming manner, if you are willing.
Your two main arguments are that I failed to provide sufficient proof that the defendants' maintain offices at the addresses at which they were served and that the manner of service was insufficient and ineffective to ensure that the defendants personally received the summonses.
On the latter issue, the fact that all seven of the defendants have hired you to dispute this case would, in my humble opinion, indicate that they did in fact receive the summonses. If, however, this is not the case, I would like to ask that you advise me immediately which, if any, of your clients have not received or cannot obtain copies of the summons that were mailed to them.
If it is true that any of the documents did not reach their intended recipients, I will gladly resend copies to them, either at your office or at addresses specified by you. However, if, as I suspect, you are in possession of these documents, I request that you share appropriate documents with any client who lacks such, rather than requiring me to expend my time and money to do so.
In the interest of saving the Court's, my, and your time, I will try to be brief. However, I would like to address several inaccuracies and issues raised in your motions, for the record.
First and foremost, your statement that "no defendant personally signed for or accepted the purported service by certified mail, and plaintiff has failed to offer proof that any person authorized to accept service did so" is factually incorrect. Mr. Delante Lewis did indeed sign for his own summons (and for one of his coworkers' summonses). As for the other defendants, it is
difficult for me to confirm whether those who signed for the summonses are "authorized" persons, but I will simply restate that I believe that the fact that all seven of the defendants have found their way to your good offices provides sufficient "proof" that they have either received or have access to the documents, and I will repeat my offer to work with you to make sure that they do indeed receive copies if that is not the case.
Second, you take issue with the addresses at which your clients were served. Again, I will argue that the fact that you are now representing all seven of the defendants in this matter would indicate to me and any person of average intelligence that the addresses in question were sufficient to ensure that the summonses reached their intended targets, and whether or not they actually maintain offices/work at those locations is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they received the summonses. That said, I can confirm that all seven of the defendants either directly represented themselves as being employed at or maintaining offices at the respective addresses at which they were served and/or were represented by company representatives and in company documents as working at the locations at which they were served. I will gladly share detailed information as to my methods of verification, including insulting emails that Mr. Robert Delissio sent to my friends where he clearly claims that he is General Manager of the Best Buy Tenleytown DC store. However, for the reasons stated above, I believe this matter is moot.
Third, you claim that "Best Buy.Com, LLC/CT Corporation is an internet only retailer and it is not registered in Washington, D.C., and it does not maintain a resident agent in Washington, D.C." My understanding is that I am required to summons Best Buy's registered agent in DC. As such, I confirmed with the DC government office referred to me by the Court, CT Corporation's office in DC, and Best Buy's legal department that this entity is Best Buy Corporation's registered agent in DC. I would be happy to provide information as to when and to whom I spoke with at each. In the interest of expediency, however, I would like to suggest that you confirm the actual name and contact information for Best Buy Corporation's registered agent in DC if the information I received is indeed inaccurate and if Best Buy.com, LLC/CT Corporation is in fact not Best Buy Corporation's registered agent in DC.
Finally, you argue against jurisdiction over the three defendants who are residents of Minnesota. As you are well aware, the initial theft took place at Best Buy's Tenleytown DC store against a customer who resides in DC. As long as Best Buy, its executives, and other representatives are operating within DC, my understanding is that the company and its agents are subject to the laws of DC. I would be happy to provide evidence of both my and the DC Attorney General Office's direct dealings and interactions with Mr. Feivor. As for Mr. Schulze and Mr. Joyce, they are among Best Buy's top executives, and as such, are the parties ultimately responsible for the policies and practices of their company, including their store in Washington, DC and its employees. Unless you can suggest Best Buy representatives who would be more appropriate than the Chairman and General Counsel to address Best Buy's legal responsibilities, policies, and practices in DC or otherwise, I believe these summonses are appropriate.
I suspect that you are well aware of all of the above. As such, I find your arguments for dismissal disingenuous and insincere, particularly in light of the fact that you make them without providing any evidence that would support the argument that your clients did not receive the summonses, do not represent Best Buy at the addresses I utilized, or explain why the people I summonsed are not the most appropriate people within Best Buy to address the issues that I have raised. That you would waste both the Court's and my time with these arguments is insulting.
Rather than continuing at this level, I will simply ask that you advise me immediately via email if: 1) any of your clients have not received or do not have access to the summonses; 2) any of your clients work at locations other than those utilized in serving the summonses; 3) if Best Buy's registered agent in DC is an entity other than Best Buy.com, LLC/CT Corporation; and 4) if Best Buy would like to suggest alternative representatives who can best speak to the specific case at hand and to the company's overall responsibilities and practices related to protection of its customers' property and personal information -- in Washington, DC, and elsewhere.
Otherwise, it is my hope that we can focus heretofore on the merits of the case, because I am quite curious to find out how America's largest consumer electronics retailer will justify its failure to fulfill its obligations under D.C. law to: properly process a computer for repair, take adequate measures to safeguard a customer's computer and its contents against theft; disclose the computer's theft to its customer in a timely manner, immediately notify its customer of a security breach that left the customer unnecessarily exposed to identity theft for an unconscionably long time, or address any of the above issues in a way that indicates that Best Buy would like to ensure against a repeat of such an across-the-board breakdown in its property and privacy protection practices when dealing with future customers.
I would like to believe that the Court will recognize both the merits of this case and the broader issues related that would suggest that it is in the interest of D.C. and U.S. consumers to address a need to address them before others fall victim to Best Buy's negligence and indifference. I do not have the legal expertise or financial resources that are available to you and your clients, but I do accept my responsibility to fulfill my legal obligations to the best of my ability so as not to waste your and the Court's time. In return, I ask that you show me and the Court the same respect.
CC: Hon. Mary A. Terrell
December 20, 2007