from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean McPartland
and Denver D. Dillard, Judges.
Wang appeals the dismissal of his civil petition.
Jianning (Roy) Wang, Marion, pro se appellant.
J. Shea of Swisher & Cohrt, P.L.C., Waterloo, for
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
Wang appeals the dismissal of his civil action against Amanda
Baumgartner. Wang filed his petition on January 12,
2018. Three days later, Wang filed a "certificate of
service" stating a copy of the petition and original
notice had been "mailed to" Baumgartner "using
USPS." The materials attached to the certificate show
one of the mailings was sent to Baumgartner at an address in
Cedar Rapids, while the three remaining mailings were sent to
Baumgartner's liability-insurance carrier.
April 16, the district court entered an order noting
Wang's certificate of service was insufficient to show
Wang complied with the personal-service requirements of the
Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure and directing Wang to file
proof of appropriate service by May 8 or face dismissal of
his petition. On April 29, Wang filed a "proof of
service" reiterating he, on January 15, mailed the
original notice and petition to Baumgartner and adding, on
April 28, the "USPS office" confirmed the mailings
"had been properly and timely delivered." Wang
provided copies of "USPS tracking" printouts, which
merely indicated the mailings had been "Delivered"
to the listed addresses. On May 9, the district court
dismissed Wang's petition without prejudice, again
stating mere mailing of the original notice and petition was
not in compliance with personal-service requirements. Wang
filed an "objection and request for clarification and
justification." The court clarified Wang failed to
comply with the service requirements of rule 1.305 and no
alternative forms of service were permitted by court order.
appellate brief, Wang first appears to question this court
whether Baumgartner's alleged actions in evading service
of process is legal and whether the court can dismiss a civil
action when a defendant evades service. Any answer on our
part would amount to an advisory opinion, which we have
neither a duty nor authority to render. See
Hartford-Carlisle Sav. Bank v. Shivers, 566 N.W.2d 877,
884 (Iowa 1997).
Wang challenges the district court's reasoning for
dismissing his petition-failure to comply with the service
requirements of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. Iowa Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.302(3), in relevant part, provides:
An original notice shall be served with a copy of the
petition. The plaintiff is responsible for service of an
original notice and petition within the time allowed under
rule 1.302(5) and shall furnish the person effecting service
with the necessary copies of the original notice and
Rule 1.302(5) provides:
If service of the original notice is not made upon the
defendant, respondent, or other party to be served within 90
days after filing the petition, the court, upon motion or its
own initiative after notice to the party filing the petition,
shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that
defendant, respondent, or other party to be served or direct
an alternate time or manner of service. If the party filing
the papers shows good cause for the failure of service, the
court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate
Personal service is made "by delivering a copy to the
proper person" and may be effectuated upon a competent
individual who has attained the ...