Monster Heavy Haulers, LLC v. Goliath Energy Services, LLC
2016 ND 176
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Goliath Energy Services (CO LLC) and its president George Satterfield were served by certified mail with collection lawsuits filed by Rossco and Monster for unpaid services; return receipts bore signatures (some marked “Agent”).
- Defendants did not timely answer; default judgments entered for Rossco ($97,233.04) and Monster ($240,107.23).
- After default judgments, defendants’ ND counsel entered appearance; Goliath and Satterfield moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate, asserting defective service and that plaintiffs failed to prove grounds to pierce the corporate veil.
- The district court denied the 60(b) motions, finding service sufficient, defendants had notice, and they waived or failed to meet their burden to disturb the judgments.
- Defendants appealed; the Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and affirmed, holding personal jurisdiction existed and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service of process / personal jurisdiction | Signed certified-mail receipts and sheriff’s return establish valid service | Service was invalid because plaintiffs did not prove the signatories were authorized agents to accept service | Plaintiffs’ proof raised rebuttable presumption of valid service; defendants bore burden to rebut and did not — service valid |
| Burden of proof to challenge service after default | Plaintiffs relied on certified-mail receipts and pleadings; default supports judgment | Defendants argued plaintiffs must prove signatories’ authority to accept service | Where defendant had actual notice and permitted default, defendant bears burden to prove lack of service; defendants failed to do so |
| Piercing the corporate veil in default judgment | Complaints alleged alter-ego facts; affidavits sworn to support liability of individuals | Satterfield argued court needed proof before imposing personal liability | Allegations (commingling, undercapitalization, failure of formalities) sworn and unchallenged were sufficient in default context to pierce veil; no meritorious defense shown |
| N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) relief standard | Default judgments should stand absent exceptional circumstances; plaintiffs met proof | Defendants sought relief for excusable neglect / void judgment | Court did not abuse discretion: defendants failed to show mistake, excusable neglect, or that judgments were void |
Key Cases Cited
- Shull v. Walcker, 770 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review and principles for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Alliance Pipeline L.P. v. Smith, 833 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 2013) (personal jurisdiction requires valid service)
- Olsrud v. Bismarck-Mandan Orchestral Ass’n, 733 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 2007) (actual notice insufficient without valid service)
- Coughlin Constr. Co., Inc. v. Nu-Tec Indus., Inc., 755 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 2008) (factors for piercing corporate veil)
- Roe v. Doe, 649 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 2002) (Rule 60(b)(4)—if judgment is void court must grant relief)
- Farm Credit Bank v. Stedman, 449 N.W.2d 562 (N.D. 1989) (sheriff’s return creates rebuttable presumption of service)