39 C.F.R. § 2.2
Agent for receipt of process
The General Counsel of the Postal Service shall act as agent for the receipt of legal process against the Postal Service, and as agent for the receipt of legal process against the Board of Governors or a member of the Board, in his or her official capacity, and all other officers and employees of the Postal Service to the extent that the process arises out of the official functions of those officers and employees. The General Counsel shall also issue public certifications concerning closed meetings of the Board as appropriate under 5 U.S.C. 552b(f).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: Healy v. United States Postal Serv., 677 F. Supp. 1284 (E.D.N.Y 1987).
Healy v. United States Postal Serv., 677 F. Supp. 1284 (E.D.N.Y 1987). “Furthermore, the plaintiff’s attempts to serve the United States Attorney for the Eastern District, the United States Attorney General and the Postmaster of the Jamaica Postal Service, even if served within the 30 day period, which did not occur in this case, will not act as…”
Lee v. Henderson, 75 F. Supp. 2d 591 (E.D. Tex. 1999). “…agent or the receipt of legal process against the Postal Service and its officials in their official capacity. See 39 C.F.R. § 2.2 .”
Johnson v. United States Postal Serv., 113 F.R.D. 73 (D. Colo. 1986). “Defendant further claims that plaintiff has not yet properly served the United States Postal Service because the designated agent for service of process specified in 39 C.F.R. § 2.2 was not served. Defendant has not cited any case or statutory authority nor am I aware of any…”
New 75th & Cottage Currency Exch., Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “39 C.F.R. § 2.2 (“The General Counsel of the Postal Service shall act as agent for the receipt of legal process against the Postal Service.”
Phillips v. United States Postal Serv. (E.D.N.Y 2022). “” 39 C.F.R. § 2.2 . To date, the USPS has not answered the complaint, nor has any counsel appeared on its behalf.”
Simpson v. DeJoy (D. Ariz. 2020). “” 39 C.F.R. § 2.2 . Thus, service upon the USPS’s general counsel was sufficient.”
Babino v. United States Postal Serv. (D. Ariz. 2021). “]” 39 C.F.R. § 2.2 . Section 409(b) also states the 9 10 provisions of title 28 relating to service of process, venue, and limitations of time for bringing action in suits in which the United States, its officers, 11 or employees are parties, and the rules of procedure adopted…”
Honeycutt v. United States Postal Serv. (W.D.N.C. 2021). “]” 39 C.F.R. § 2.2 . Section 409(b) also states the provisions of title 28 relating to service of process, venue, and limitations of time for bringing action in suits in which the United States, its officers, or employees are parties, and the rules of procedure adopted under…”
Honeycutt v. United States Postal Serv. (W.D.N.C. 2021). “39 C.F.R. § 2.2 . This Court has already determined the initial service attempt in August of 2020 was improper.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.