Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
2012 WI 31
Wis.2012Background
- Johnson sued Cintas No. 2 along with Cintas and others; the complaint named Cintas, not Cintas No. 2.
- Service of process occurred on the registered agent for Cintas No. 2, not the amended defendant named in the complaint.
- Default judgment was entered against Cintas No. 2 after Johnson moved to amend to name Cintas No. 2, and the circuit court treated the amendment as not bringing in a new party.
- Cintas No. 2 moved to vacate the default judgment arguing lack of personal jurisdiction; the circuit court granted relief.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding no personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2 existed because it was not named in the summons and complaint.
- This court affirmatively held that naming Cintas rather than Cintas No. 2 in the summons constitutes a fundamental defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did failure to name Cintas No. 2 render service fundamental? | Johnson argues Cintas No. 2 was served; defect is technical | Cintas No. 2 contends failure to name it in the summons is fundamental | Yes; fundamental defect; lack of jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2 |
| Does misnomer doctrine apply to correct misnaming by amendment? | Ness allows correction if no prejudice; service to entity served suffices | Hoesley controls; misnomer correction allowed only if it does not bring a new party | No; misnomer here constitutes substitution of a new party, not mere correction |
| Can amendment that substitutes Cintas No. 2 for Cintas salvage jurisdiction? | Amendment would relate back as no prejudice | Amendment creates a new party; requires proper service on Cintas No. 2 | No; substitution without proper service cannot create jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 167 Wis. 2d 524 (1992) (strict compliance with service rules; fundamental defect if not naming defendant)
- Bulik v. Arrow Realty, Inc. of Racine, 148 Wis. 2d 441 (Ct. App. 1988) (failure to name defendant in summons is fundamental)
- Hoesley v. La Crosse VFW Chapter, 46 Wis. 2d 501 (1970) (misnomer may be technical if it does not create new party when corrected)
- Parks v. West Side Ry. Co., 82 Wis. 219 (1892) (amendment correcting name from Railway to Railroad may be permissible)
- Ness v. Digital Dial Commc'ns, Inc., 227 Wis. 2d 592 (1999) ( amended complaint timing and effect; relation to new claims)