Service upon Corporate Director of Summons and Complaint Naming "d/b/a" of Corporation Sufficient
The plaintiff sued the defendants Cliff Bass and MRI Network Sales Consultants of Plantation for breach of contract, even though its contract was with a company named Rabrob Corp., of which Cliff Bass was managing director. The summons and complaint listing Mr. Bass and MRI Network Sales Consultants of Plantation as defendants was served upon Mr. Bass in his individual capacity and as “managing director” of MRI Network Sales Consultants of Plantation. Neither Mr. Bass nor MRI Network Sales Consultants of Plantation filed an answer, and the plaintiff moved for and received a default judgment against them. The defendants then moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing that the circuit court had no personal jurisdiction over them in relation to the claims made in the complaint because the contract was between the plaintiff and Rabrob Corp. The circuit court denied the defendants’ motion and they appealed to the court of appeals.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that when a summons and complaint mislabels the correct corporate defendant by using one of its “d/b/a names,” the pleadings are not defective if they are served upon the correct corporate defendant or correct corporate officer. Under Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis. 2d 501, 175 N.W.2d 214 (1970), if a summons and complaint providing an incorrect defendant name is served upon the correct defendant, the pleadings are not defective. On the other hand, under Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2011 WI App 5, 331 Wis. 2d 51, 794 N.W.2d 475, if the wrong corporate entity is named as a defendant, the pleadings can be defective even if served upon the correct corporate entity. Here, because the correct corporate entity’s “d/b/a name” was used in the pleadings, the court of appeals held that the situation was closer to that of Hoesley.
Red Star Yeast Co. v. Bass (2010AP1109) Court of Appeals opinion
