MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Currently before the Court is Defendant Logan Beck Farm, LLC’s combined motion to vacate the Entry of Default (“Motion to Vacate”) and motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (“Motion to Dismiss”). Dkt. No. 29-1 (together, “Motions”). Plaintiff Cody Burkhart filed a response to Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. No. 32, (“Response”), and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 33 (“Reply”). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion to Vacate and denies the Motion to Dismiss. II. BACKGROUND The following procedural facts and attestations are relevant to the instant Motion. A. Procedural History Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant by filing a complaint on November 15, 2023. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an affidavit for proof of service on Defendant. See Dkt. No. 20 (“Affidavit of Service”). The Affidavit of Service stated that Summons and Complaint were served on Mr. Dan Krutz (“Krutz”) on February 15, 2024, at Defendant’s place of business. See Affidavit of Serv. at 1. Plaintiff filed an updated proof of service indicating that Krutz was a manager who was authorized by law to receive process on behalf of Defendant. See Dkt. No. 22 (“Updated Affidavit of Service”) at 1. After Defendant failed to respond, Plaintiff requested an entry of default on March 12, 2024, Dkt. No. 23, which the Clerk entered on the same day, Dkt. No. 24 (“Entry of Default”). On April 5, 2024, Defendant filed both a Notice of Appearance and an Answer to the Complaint. See Dkt. No. 26; Dkt. No. 27 (“Answer”). B. Defendant’s Motions 1. Motion to Vacate Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not comply the Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for effectuating service of process. See Mot. at 1. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s service of process was untimely because it was effectuated after both the sixty-day deadline outlined in this Court’s Local Rules and the ninety-day deadline contained in the Federal Rules. See id. Moreover, even if the service was effectuated in a timely manner, Defendant argues it was insufficient because Krutz was not authorized by law to receive process on behalf of Defendant. See id. According to Defendant, only Mr. Logan Beck (“Beck”), who is the owner and acting general office manager of Defendant, is authorized to receive process on behalf of Defendant. See Dkt. No. 29-3
