Custom Pro Logistics, L.L.C. v. Penn Logistics, L.L.C.
2022 Ohio 1774
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- CPL sued Penn for damaged goods and served the summons and complaint by certified mail to 600 Buck Road, Monroeville, NJ — the address listed for Penn’s principal place of business and its registered agent. Delivery receipt was returned signed.
- Penn did not file an answer; CPL obtained a default judgment on September 29, 2020.
- Penn moved to vacate the default judgment, asserting it never received the complaint and that someone unaffiliated (likely an adjacent gas-station employee) signed for the certified mail.
- The trial court denied Penn’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment; no written findings were provided.
- On appeal, the court reviewed (1) whether service was effective to confer personal jurisdiction and (2) whether Penn demonstrated excusable neglect warranting relief under Civ.R. 60(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service by certified mail conferred personal jurisdiction / whether trial court should vacate default judgment | CPL: Service complied with Civ.R. 4.1/4.2; addressed to the LLC’s business/agent address; delivered — presumption of proper service applies | Penn: Delivery was to an unrelated business/unknown signatory who never gave the mail to Penn, so service did not provide notice or confer jurisdiction | Court: Service to the correct business/agent address was effective under Civ.R.; Penn failed to rebut presumption of proper service; trial court had personal jurisdiction and did not abuse discretion in denying vacatur |
| Whether Penn is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) for excusable neglect | CPL: Service was proper; Penn’s lack of actual notice resulted from its own inadequate procedures and so is not excusable | Penn: Lack of actual notice and not receiving the complaint constitutes excusable neglect warranting relief | Court: Denied relief — movant failed to show excusable neglect (failure traced to Penn’s choice of address/agent or lack of internal procedures); no abuse of discretion in denying relief or refusal to hold a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1988) (void-judgment doctrine and inherent power to vacate where court lacks personal jurisdiction)
- Castellano v. Kosydar, 42 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1975) (certified-mail service is effective upon delivery; actual notice not required)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 64 Ohio St.2d 49 (Ohio 1980) (service rules for delivery by third parties)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (personal jurisdiction may be acquired by service of process)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (standards for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (trial court has discretion to hold or deny evidentiary hearing on Civ.R. 60(B) motion)