Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
2011 WI App 5
Wis. Ct. App.2010Background
- Johnson, an employee of Cintas Corporation No. 2, sued for benefits under his employer's health insurance plan after a crash involving a vehicle driven by a friend.
- The original summons and complaint named Cintas Corporation as the defendant, not Cintas Corporation No. 2, and the two entities are separate legal entities.
- Cintas No. 2 is a foreign Wisconsin entity, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cintas Corporation; Cintas Corporation is not registered or doing business in Wisconsin.
- Service on April 19, 2007 was made on CT Corporation System as the registered agent for Cintas No. 2, but the pleading named Cintas Corporation as the defendant.
- Default judgment was sought and, after a hearing, Johnson was allowed to amend the summons and complaint to name Cintas Corporation No. 2, and a default judgment was entered against Cintas No. 2.
- Afterward, Cintas No. 2 moved to vacate and to challenge the default judgment; the court vacated, then reconsideration reinstated the default judgment, and damages were subsequently awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misnaming the defendant deprived personal jurisdiction | Johnson's mislabeling was sufficient to identify the right party; amendment should relate back or confer jurisdiction. | Misnaming the defendant prevented proper service and jurisdiction; amending to name a new party requires service. | Default judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction; misnaming the defendant created jurisdictional defects. |
| Whether amendment to name Cintas Corporation No. 2 brought a new party without service | Amendment to correct the party should be permissible since the misnomer identified the right defendant. | Amendment effectively added a new party (Cintas No. 2) that had not been served; thus jurisdiction failed. | Amendment to substitute a new corporate defendant without service implicated a new party; jurisdiction not conferred. |
| Whether amendment or relation back could cure service defects | Relation back could allow the action to proceed against the correctly named party. | Strict service requirements cannot be bypassed by amendment when a new party is added. | Relation back or amendment cannot validate a void service that adds a new party without proper service. |
| Whether the trial court properly treated Cintas No. 2 as properly served | Cintas No. 2 had actual notice and was effectively served through the amended pleading. | Service of process on Cintas No. 2 was not properly effected; the initial service named the wrong entity. | Service did not confer personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2; judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulik v. Arrow Realty, Inc., 148 Wis.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1988) (failure to name the defendant in the summons deprives jurisdiction even if served later)
- Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis.2d 501 (1969) (misnamed but identified entity can be amended if it does not bring a new party)
- Mech v. Borowski, 116 Wis.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1983) (strict compliance with service rules required)
- Ausen v. Moriarty, 268 Wis. 167 (1954) (permitting correction of party name in pleadings)
- Wengerd v. Rinehart, 114 Wis.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1983) (judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction when service is improper)
- Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis.2d 501 (1970) (amendment to substitute misnamed yet correct entity possible)