For Hypos 1 & 2, consider, first, whether the means of service suggested would satisfy the requirements of the service of process rules in Illinois or in Fed.R.Civ.P., and then whether, assuming the means were authorized, it satisfies due process.
1. RIAA suit (must be in federal court):
a. Serve on 12 year old
b. Next door neighbor
c. Parents' house, while student is at school
d. Parents'' house while in USA in Iraq
e. Friend's house - crashes there whenever in town
f. Vacation condo
g. Condo rented out while overseas for six mos.
i. 13 year old brother
k. Dog sitter
2. Suit to partition tenancies in common in Trump's Tallest
One dft lives in Northbrook
Second lives in Back Bay Boston
Third is LT2 with U.S. Army, special ops in Afghanistan
Fourth is a fugitive
4. TV broadcast
5. Drive a stake in the ground after demolition of Sun Times
6. Banner on Sun Times bldg
Domiciliary of IL, lived for 20 years in Beirut
3. Suit in federal court against Hide, Inc. Serve:
a. Security guard in high-rise building where Hide,Inc. is headquartered
b. Serve CEO's secretary as she passes through the lobby on the way to work
c. Serve the Chief Technology officer
4. IL service of process statute amended to include:
§ 2-203(a)(3). "or by any other means resulting in actual notice."
Margaret Fleetwood sues Jesse Roberts in the Circuit Court of Cook County for intentional infliction of emotional distress, resulting from an oral exchange in Civil Procedure Class. Both are domiciliaries of Illinois.
Knowing that Roberts has a dog that periodically escapes from his yard, she wraps
the summons and complaint in a pound of hamburger meat and leaves it on his
back porch. Roberts' dog escapes and roams the neighborhood looking for food.
The dog finds the package that Fleetwood has prepared and takes it home to eat
it. Roberts returns from class and sees the summons and complaint in the dog's
bowl, where the dog left it after cleaning all the hamburger meat off of it.
He reads it, and files a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacks
jurisdiction over him because the means of service was unconstitutional.