When I filed my amended complaint in my § 1983 claim, I added Anna De Santis after David Yopp’s Court of Appeals sanctions motion confirmed a premeditated plan he had threatened back in February—a plan Anna was clearly aware of. For more than two months, the Durham County Sheriff tried to serve her at the address on her state registration for the Fair Housing complaint.
When that failed, I went through the Wake County Sheriff at her last residence—where she’d previously been served—only to be told she was “out of the country until further notice.” The problem? She was actively managing her rental business, posting new property ads, and overseeing renovations.
Both her Cary property (owned by her father) and her Durham residence (occupied by close family) refused service, even though she has no licensed property manager to legally run her business in her absence. My motion detailed these evasive tactics, documented actual notice of the lawsuit, and addressed the Court’s prior mischaracterization of my diligence.
I asked the Court to authorize service by email and through Yopp’s counsel, making it clear that holding me responsible for third-party procedural failures while letting Anna hide behind them undermines both Rule 4 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any semblance of fairness.
*I wrote this motion on July 25 but wasn’t able to file it until July 31 due to not being able to access electronic filing.