Margaret Reynolds and David Reynolds, Husband and Wife v. Jean B. Moore, an Individual, Judith Jaeger and Wilford Jaeger, Husband and Wife, 318 P.3d 362

March 4, 2008: automobile accident in Wyoming; Mrs. Reynolds injured; Moore was the driver and an employee of the Jaegers.
February 21, 2012: Reynolds sued Moore (negligence) and the Jaegers (respondeat superior).
March 13, 2012: Moore personally served in California with a summons that misstated the response deadline (stated 20 days instead of 30 for out-of-state service) and referenced Idaho rules instead of Wyoming rules.
April 2, 2012: Moore answered and asserted affirmative defenses including insufficiency of process/service under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(4) and (5).
April 30, 2012: Reynolds served a corrected summons; Moore moved to dismiss arguing the first defective summons was jurisdictionally fatal and the statute of limitations had run; district court granted dismissal of Moore and then dismissed the Jaegers as their liability was derivative.
Wyoming Supreme Court reversed: held the errors in the first summons were not radical, Moore had actual notice and was not prejudiced, the action was deemed commenced under Rule 3(b), so dismissal was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Moore properly served so court obtained personal jurisdiction?	Reynolds: summons defects were not fatal; Moore received actual notice and opportunity to defend.	Moore: incorrect response time and wrong procedural rules made the first service insufficient; statute of limitations expired before valid service.	Court: service was sufficient; errors were not radical, Moore had actual notice and was not prejudiced, so court acquired jurisdiction.
Were Moore’s Rule 12(b)(4)/(5) defenses properly asserted?	Reynolds: because service was effective, defenses fail.	Moore: she properly raised insufficiency of process/service.	Court: did not need to decide because jurisdictional ruling resolved the case; dismissal on those defenses unnecessary.
Did the incorrect return date in the summons deprive the court of jurisdiction?	Reynolds: wrong date is technical and cured by Moore’s timely response; no prejudice.	Moore: wrong return date is a required element under W.R.C.P. 4(b) and is fatal.	Court: wrong return date was not radical; Rule 4(n) permits amendment; timely response cured the defect.
Were the Jaegers properly dismissed given Moore’s dismissal?	Reynolds: claims against Jaegers are derivative of valid claim against Moore; dismissal of Moore was erroneous.	Jaegers: with Moore dismissed, derivative respondeat superior claim fails.	Court: because Moore’s dismissal was erroneous, dismissing the Jaegers was also erroneous; remanded.

Hoke v. Motel 6 Jackson, 131 P.3d 369 (Wyo. 2006) (strict compliance with summons formalities required where defects deprive defendant of notice)
Gookin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 826 P.2d 229 (Wyo. 1992) (substituted service requirements strictly enforced; defects can invalidate service)
Clause v. Columbia Savings & Loan Ass'n, 95 P. 54 (Wyo. 1908) (only radical defects that render service void, not merely voidable, deprive court of jurisdiction)
Rosty v. Skaj, 272 P.3d 947 (Wyo. 2012) (personal delivery to usual place of abode sufficient despite dispute over recipient’s competence when no prejudice shown)
Nat'l Supply Co. v. Chittim, 387 P.2d 1010 (Wyo. 1964) (service by publication strictly construed; return date errors in publication cases can be fatal)
Emery v. Emery, 404 P.2d 745 (Wyo. 1965) (same principle for service by publication; formalities required)