United States v. David Mednansky

MEMORANDUM

David and Martine Mednansky appeal pro se from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States in an ejectment and trespass suit brought by the government. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

1.The Mednanskys were properly served with the complaint through their attorney. The district court therefore properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the Mednanskys. The United States served the Mednanskys by delivering a ■copy of the complaint “to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2)(C). The Mednanskys retained their counsel to represent them in a suit they filed pro se against Forest Service officials. Their attorney-client relationship with their counsel continued in this case, which was filed contemporaneous to the other litigation and involved many of the same parties and related facts. See Damron v. Herzog, 67 F.3d 211, 214 (9th Cir. 1995). Their counsel signed and acknowledged service of the complaint, and as such became attorney of record for the' Med-nanskys. S.D. Calif. Local. R. 83.3(g)(1). Their counsel need not have had express authority to accept service…