TAMEKA JONES,

Plaintiff,
v.

MARY K. STARSBURY

Defendant.

* * * * * * * * * *

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF MARYLAND

FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

CASE NO.: Case No.:  C-09-155978 MT

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR MOTION FOR SERVICE
BY ALTERNATIVE METHOD

     The Plaintiff, Tameka Jones, by and through her attorneys, Laura G. Zois and Miller & Zois, LLC, moves this Honorable Court to allow service of process upon Defendant, Mary Ann Starsbury, by alternative method and for reasons, states:

    1. That on or about July 20, 2013, a Writ of Summons was issued in the case of Tameka Jones v. Mary Ann Starsbury, Case No: Case No.: C-09-155978 MT by the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, to the Defendant’s name and address.
    2. That the address for Defendant Mary Ann Starsbury was known to be at 1125 Van Gogh Way, Apt. A, Bel Air, Md 21015, at the time of the incident relating to this case and Plaintiff attempted to serve the Defendant at that address but the package was returned unserved.
    3. That Dangerfeld Investigations, Inc., found the Defendant Starsbury’s address was actually 1831 Segelboot Lane West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 (See attached Exhibit A).
    4. That the West Palm Beach County Sheriff’s was employed to serve Defendant at the 1831 Segelboot Lane West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 address but they were unable to serve her. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department was informed that Defendant Starsbury had actually returned to Maryland. (See attached Exhibit B).
    5. The Defendant is required by law to keep her addresses correct with the Motor Vehicle Administration. She is either refusing to pick up their certified mail or are no longer living at the aforementioned addresses.
    6. The Plaintiff has incurred expenses to locate the Defendant.
    7. Plaintiff was unable to serve the Defendant at these locations and requested that
      the Court allow alternative service upon Electric Insurance, the Defendant’s insurance company.
    8. The Defendant’s insurance company is aware of this claim and the lawsuit it has
      already retained defense counsel.
    9. There would be no prejudice to the Defendant allowing for alternative service to their insurance company.

      WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant an Order allowing service of process upon Defendant, Mary Anne Starsbury, by mailing a copy of the Summons and Complaint to the Defendants' insurance carrier, Electric Insurance, Claims Examiner Brian Perry , at 75 Sam Fonzo Drive, P.O. Box 1030 Beverly Massachusetts 01915, and for such other and further relief this Court deems appropriate.

                                                                           Respectfully submitted,

                                                                           MILLER & ZOIS, LLC


                                                                           Laura G. Zois
                                                                           Empire Towers, Suite 1001
                                                                           7310 Ritchie Highway
                                                                           Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061
                                                                           (410)553-6000
                                                                           (410)760-8922 (Fax)
                                                                           Attorney for the Plaintiff