Reference no: EM132185188

Use this fact pattern for problems #1-3. Aida rented a small house in state of portland , oregon from a married couple, Jane and Stone, who lived in Vancouver, Washington. Last summer, Jane and Aida got in an argument over a trivial matter. The next day, Jane verbally told Aida to “get out” of the house immediately so her daughter’s family could move in. A few days later, Jane and Stone went to the rental house and found Aida still living there. They proceeded to throw Aida’s belongings out of the house. They also called Haul-Away, a moving company from Vancouver, to come and haul away all of Aida’s personal property. Haul-Away did as instructed despite Aida’s protest. Aida was eventually locked out of the house and became homeless for a few days until her parents, who flew in from Maine, helped her out. She and her parents drove to Haul-Away office and demanded the return of her belongings. Haul-Away stated it had no idea what they were talking about.

1. Service of Process. Aida sued her landlords, Jane and Stone, for various violations of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act in Oregon state court. She also sued Haul-Away for conversion (theft) of her personal property. The landlords were successfully served. As for Haul-Away, the summons and complaint were served on the person at the front desk in its Vancouver office. That person told the process server that she was not employed by Haul- Away, but was just a friend of the receptionist, who went on a quick errand to a coffee shop. Is service on defendant Haul-Away sufficient or valid?