In the Matter of the Complaint Against      )
                                                                  )
HAMEED ULLAH, et al.                              )
a/k/a Tony Ullah                                         )
1318 North Laurel                                      )
                                                                  )
                    at                                           )
                                                                  )
Upland, CA 91786-3133                            )   P. S. Docket No. 41/37

APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:      Rodney Gould, Esq.
                                                                  Betty A. Garner, Esq.
                                                                  Consumer Protection Law
                                                                  United States Postal Service
                                                                  Washington, DC 20260-1147

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:          Hameed Ullah
                                                                 P. O. Box 9027
                                                                 Ontario, CA 91762-9027

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFAULT ORDER

Respondent Hameed Ullah has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order issued March 29, 1994, finding Respondent in default for failing to file an Answer to the Complaint within the 15-day period provided in the Notice of Answer and Hearing (Notice) issued pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. Part 952. Respondent claims that he has been out of the country for several months and the Complaint and Notice were not served on either he or his sole authorized agent within the United States, Chandana Bhattacharya. In the absence of proper service, Respondent contends the default order should be reconsidered, the proceeding against Respondent dismissed, or if necessary, a hearing held. Complainant has filed a response to the motion in which it contends that the default order should not be reconsidered and/or revoked because the Complaint was properly served on Respondent and he did not file a timely Answer.

BACKGROUND

Complainant initiated this proceeding by filing a Complaint on February 15, 1994, alleging that Respondent was conducting a scheme for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of materially false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005. In accordance with 39 C.F.R. §952.8, the Complaint and Notice were delivered to Respondent's home and to the several business addresses to which he solicited remittances through the mail. The business addresses were commercial mail receiving services authorized to receive mail on Respondent's behalf.⁽¹⁾ Receipts showing delivery of the Complaint and Notice to Respondent's addresses reflect that delivery took place between February 18 and 23, 1994. Based on these dates, the Answer was to be filed on or before March 10, 1994. The Answer was not filed within the time allowed and therefore the Order of Default was issued on March 29, 1994.

DISCUSSION

Although Respondent contends that the person signing the receipt for the Complaint and Notice was probably a minor who was not competent to accept service of process, he has not presented any support for this contention, nor established that the commercial mail receiving services were not authorized to accept mail on his behalf.⁽²⁾ Under such circumstances the Complaint and Notice were properly served on Respondent no later than February 23, 1994, and the Answer was required to be filed on or before March 10, 1994.

Respondent admits that Ms. Bhattacharya received a "folder full of documents" on March 6, 1994, but asserts that she immediately contacted Postal Inspector Betty Garner who advised her that the hearing had been postponed and that nothing further was to be done at that time. This advice directly contradicted the terms of the Notice⁽³⁾ and should have alerted Ms. Bhattacharya to the need for further clarification from the Recorder whose name, address and telephone number appeared on the Notice. Absent such inquiry, Respondent assumed the risk that he might be held to be in default.

CONCLUSION

The Complaint was served on Respondent in accordance with the Rules of Practice and no Answer was filed within the time allowed. Respondent has not shown that his failure to file the Answer was excusable or that any other basis exists to grant his Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer

1. See Glen Marion Pilie, P.S. Docket No. 37/49 at 3 (P.S.D. Feb. 28, 1991); Sheldon Lewenfus, P.S. Docket No. 30/159 at 5 (P.S.D. Sept. 30, 1988) holding that a commercial mail receiving facility was an agent for service of process.

2. Id.

3. The Notice advised Respondent that the Answer was to be filed not later than 15 calendar days after receipt of the Complaint and Notice, and prominently warned Respondent that the failure to file the Answer would result in the issuance of the orders sought in the Complaint.