South Dakota Supreme Court
R.b.o., J.h.c., N.t.h, L.m., L.z., K.t., J.j., and B.s., Plaintiffs and Appellees v. Priests of the Sacred Heart…
December 14, 20112011 S.D. LEXIS 142
Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, holding that the plaintiffs failed to properly serve the Priests of the Sacred Heart, Inc. because service was not made on an authorized individual or the correct corporate entity, and the doctrine of substantial compliance does not cure the defect. The court applied a de novo review of the service‑of‑process issue.
Holding
- Did service on Amanda Milczarski satisfy SDCL 15-6-4(d)(1) as a valid service on PSH?. No; Milczarski was not an officer, director, or registered agent of PSH and therefore could not receive service on PSH under SDCL 15-6-4(d)(1).
- Did service on David Nagle, the registered agent, satisfy South Dakota service‑of‑process requirements given the summons was addressed to the wrong corporate defendant?. No; because the summons was directed to the Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, Inc., not to PSH, the service did not satisfy the statutory requirements for PSH.
- Does the doctrine of substantial compliance validate service that fails to meet the statutory notice requirements?. No; substantial compliance cannot cure a failure to serve the correct party under the statutory notice provisions.
Docket 25842
Cited by
- Davis v. United States Department of Justice
- Hadden v. University Accounting Services
- Margaret Upell, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Dewey County Commission, Defendant and Appellee, and Moreau-Grand…
- Jon Sommervold, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
- Jas Enterprises, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Bbs Enterprises, Inc., a South Dakota…
- Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC
- Hadden v. University Accounting Services
- Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC