With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". whether the defendant officers routinely acquiesced to service of process via the method attempted in this case. According to Labriola, the Worcester Police Department never responded to this request; moreover, she stated that Rider, the City’s attorney, agreed to help her obtain the information, but that he never followed through. Limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing would permit the plaintiffs to uncover whether there is additional evidence of service effected in the manner attempted in this case. If the defendant officers have accepted service in this fashion on a number of occasions, then a strong argument exists that McNamara possessed implied, actual authority to accept service of process on their behalf. See In re Focus Media Inc., 387 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Ziegler Bolt & Parts

A: holding that while a purported agent must possess actual authority to accept service of process such authority may be implied rather than express
B: holding attorney cannot accept service of process which commences the action without any authority to do so from his principal
C: holding attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims
D: holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation
A.