Edit: TLDR at end.

This link was posted here yesterday, about the case against the DNC and DWS moving forward, but I believe one of the most crucial insights was missed. Shawn Lucas was the person who served the DNC and DWS the lawsuit at DNC headquarters in July (Video). From the article:

On August 23, an evidentiary hearing will be held in South Florida and both parties involved in the suit will have to present evidence to support their positions. The hearing was issued by the presiding judge in response to the DNC and Wasserman Schultz’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit[PDF], and a separate motion to buy themselves more time until September 9. “Insufficient service of process” was cited, alleging process server Shawn Lucas failed to properly serve the DNC. Lucas was filmed serving the lawsuit to the DNC headquarters in July, but was unable to provide testimony to combat the testimony of DNC staff member Rebecca Herries. Lucas was found dead on August 2 in his apartment. A cause of death has not yet been determined.

Further on, the article describes the nature of the defense's contention of insufficient service of process:

“I am employed at the Democratic National Committee (the ‘DNC’) as a special assistant to the CEO, Amy Dacey. I do not work for DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I am not authorized to accept service of process for the DNC, Ms. Dacey, or for Congresswoman Schultz, neither in her capacity as DNC Chairperson nor in her capacity as Congresswoman,” said Herries in her testimony. Dacey formally resigned in the wake of the WikiLeaks release due to evidence of her overt favoritism for Clinton being revealed in several of the uncovered emails. Beck & Lee refuted Herries’ claims in court, at which point the evidentiary hearing was set.

The defense's contention is that the service of process was insufficient because the person who accepted the suit was not authorized to do so. This should be a huge red flag in itself, because what this likely means is that the DNC sent someone to receive the suit whom they knew was not authorized, ensuring that that the court proceedings would be dragged out, hopefully (for them) after the election.

But the key takeaway here is that Lucas' convenient death means he is unable to give testimony in court about the nature of the service, to refute Herries testimony. As the article continues, "If they’re successful, the summons would have to be reissued, therefore prolonging the suit." I think we can all see why having this suit delayed until after the election would be in the best interest of the DNC and DWS (who is facing her own primary challenge in about a week.)

Just to preempt a possible rebuttal, and because of how ridiculous a statement they make, here's Snopes' take on Shawn Lucas' death:

(Lucas was named in a motion [PDF] filed on 22 July 2016 by the DNC, seeking to dismiss the suit on partial grounds of improper service.) What anyone would have to gain by retroactively murdering a process server remained unexplained by conspiracy theorists.

Yep, they actually put those two sentences back to back unironically.

Tl;dr: Shawn Lucas served the DNC and DWS a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters, claiming the actions of the DNC during the primary constituted fraud and deception, among other claims. So Shawn shows up at the DNC, tells them he's serving them papers, and they send down a woman named Rebecca Herries to accept the suit. She never indicates she is not authorized to receive the papers.

Fast forward to August, and the DNC is now trying to dismiss the case on the grounds that Herries was unauthorized to receive the papers, and conveniently, Shawn Lucas mysteriously turned up dead in his bathroom, and is therefore unable to refute her testimony in court. All throughout the media after Lucas' death, the refutation of the "conspiracy theorists" was, "Why would they kill the process server? It doesn't make any sense." This is why.