Background
Terrance Kimbrough filed suit in September 2024 against Hercules Drawn Steel Corporation, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. On October 7, 2024, plaintiff’s process server attempted service by locating David Gunsberg, Hercules’s general counsel, at an office in Oak Park—not at Hercules’s actual location in Livonia. The office was located at Eaton Steel Bar Company, a separate corporation under common ownership with Hercules.
Gunsberg accepted service only on his own behalf as an individual defendant and explicitly informed the process server that he was not authorized to accept service for Hercules and was not its registered agent. The process server ultimately left the summons and complaint on a receptionist’s desk. Plaintiff later obtained a default judgment against Hercules on November 21, 2024, for failure to appear.
Hercules moved to set aside the default, arguing that it had never been properly served with process. The trial court granted the motion and also granted Hercules’s summary disposition motion. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Hercules had not been properly served with process. Under MCL 600.1920, service on a corporate defendant must be made by leaving the summons and complaint with any officer or resident agent of the corporation. The court found that Gunsberg, although Hercules’s general counsel, did not accept service on the corporation’s behalf and explicitly refused to do so. Because the documents were ultimately left on a receptionist’s desk rather than with an authorized corporate representative, service was improper.
The court further noted that even if Gunsberg qualified as an officer or resident agent, the proof of service was defective under MCR 2.104(A)(1) because it was never dated and signed by a person authorized to receive service. Most critically, because service was improper, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Hercules when it entered the default judgment. Consequently, Hercules did not need to show good cause to set aside the default—lack of jurisdiction alone justified vacating it.
Key Takeaways
- Service of process on a corporate defendant requires delivery to an authorized officer, resident agent, or designated representative—leaving documents on an unattended desk is insufficient.
- A defendant’s explicit refusal to accept service prevents that person from being a valid conduit for service, even if they hold a corporate position.
- Defective service deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction, allowing vacation of a default judgment without requiring the defendant to demonstrate good cause.
- Proof of service must be properly executed (dated and signed by an authorized recipient) to establish valid service under Michigan court rules.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Michigan’s strict adherence to proper service-of-process requirements. For plaintiffs’ counsel, it serves as a cautionary reminder that casual or informal service attempts will not suffice, even against known defendants. The ruling emphasizes that identifying the right person—not just anyone at a corporate location—is essential. For defense counsel, it underscores the importance of clearly refusing unauthorized service and documenting that refusal, as well as confirming that service was never made to a registered agent or authorized representative.
The decision protects corporate defendants’ due process rights by ensuring they receive actual, formal notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend before facing default. Courts will not allow defaults to stand when jurisdiction was never properly obtained, making strict compliance with MCL 600.1920 and MCR 2.104 non-negotiable requirements for plaintiffs seeking to move forward with litigation.