United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS M. DURKIN, District Judge.
Defendants Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC, n/k/a Anselmo Lindberg Oliver, LLC ("FAL"), and Steven C. Lindberg have moved to vacate the order of default entered against them on April 23, 2015. For the following reasons, the Court grants the defendants' motion.
Pro se plaintiff Eloise Lockhart has sued numerous defendants for various alleged violations of federal and state law arising from attempts to foreclose on her home. R. 6. With the exception of FAL and Lindberg, the other defendants in the case filed their appearances and moved to dismiss Lockhart's complaint. R. 35, 38, 42. On May 19, 2014, Lockhart filed an affidavit from her process server indicating that he had been unable to serve the defendants after three attempts. R. 57. On that same date, Lockhart filed "executed" summonses for Lindberg and FAL. R. 55; R. 56. In fact, the Returns of Service were not executed. In lieu of signed Returns of Service, Lockhart attached photocopies of certified mail receipts listing Lindberg and FAL as addressees. Id. On June 26, 2014, Lockhart filed a motion to approve alternative service on FAL and Lindberg, essentially asking the Court to ratify her previous attempt to serve the defendants by mail. R. 66. On August 1, 2014, before hearing Lockhart's motion for alternative service, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order: (1) dismissing Counts I, II, III, and XV of Lockhart's amended complaint without prejudice; (2) staying Counts XI (as to HSBC, HFC III, MERS, and MERSCORP), XII (as to HSBC and HFC III), and XIII (as to HSBC and HFC III) in light of a pending foreclosure action in state court; and (3) dismissing the balance of Lockhart's complaint with prejudice. R. 71 at 38. The Court gave Lockhart leave to amend her complaint once the foreclosure action was complete. Id. A week later, on August 7, 2014, the Court dismissed Lockhart's motion for alternative service without prejudice. R. 72.
On December 10, 2014, Lockhart filed an "amended" motion to approve alternative service as to FAL and Lindberg. R. 93. She indicated in her motion that she had mailed alias summonses to the defendants, and attached to her motion photocopies of the return receipts addressed to "Thomas J. Anselmo, Registered Agent." R. 93-2. The return receipts are stamped "Restricted Delivery, " id., which "ensures that mail is delivered only to a specific addressee or the addressee's authorized agent." See "Restricted Delivery, " available at https://about.usps.com/publications/pub370/pub370_013.htm (last visited July 7, 2015). In the delivery portion of the form, someone checked "agent" (rather than "addressee"). R. 93-2. An indecipherable signature appears in the upper right hand corner of the form. Id. 
At the hearing on Lockhart's amended motion for alternative service, the Court indicated that it believed that mailing process to the defendants was proper. As such, the Court denied as moot Lockhart's motion for "alternative" service. R. 95. The Court invited Lockhart to file a motion for an order of default, which she filed on April 15, 2015. R. 104. The Court granted her motion and entered an order of default against FAL and Lindberg on April 23, 2015. R. 110. FAL and Lindberg filed the present motion to vacate the default on May 21, 2015. R. 114.
The Court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c). "Any of the reasons sufficient to justify the vacation of a default judgment under Rule 60(b) normally will justify relief from a default entry...." 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2696 (3d ed.). Among other grounds, Rule 60(b) authorizes courts to vacate a judgment that is "void." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). "A judgment entered against a defendant over whom the court had no jurisdiction is void, and no court has the discretion to refuse to vacate that judgment once it recognizes its lack of jurisdiction." Philos Tech., Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 645 F.3d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Relational, LLC v. Hodges, 627 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2010) ("[A] judgment is void as to any party who was not adequately served.").
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 sets forth the procedures governing service of process in federal cases. Rule 4(h) provides that a domestic corporation or other unincorporated association must be served "in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual, " or
by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and-if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). An individual, in turn, must be served by
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is ...