806 N.W.2d 907
S.D.2011Background
- Former students allege childhood sexual abuse at St. Joseph’s Indian Mission School on the Lower Brule Reservation.
- St. Joseph’s operated by PSHI; plaintiffs sue PSHI and other defendants for abuse by school employees or agents.
- Plaintiffs delivered summons June 28–29, 2010; sheriff served Tyrell (Executive Director of Child Services at St. Joseph’s) who is not PSHI’s registered agent.
- PSHI moved to dismiss, arguing improper service under SD law; circuit court denied, finding Tyrell’s service substantially complied and SDCL 15-2-31 extended time.
- On appeal, Supreme Court held service on Tyrell was not valid under SDCL 15-6-4(d)(1) and rejected substantial-compliance; held SDCL 15-2-31 extends time to complete proper service, allowing July 26, 2010 PSHI service within the 60-day window.
- Plaintiffs timely served PSHI within the 60-day extension, so dismissal was improper and the circuit court’s denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Tyrell an authorized recipient under SDCL 15-6-4(d)(1)? | Plaintiffs argued Tyrell was in charge of an office and could receive service. | Tyrell was not PSHI’s president, head, officer, director, or registered agent. | No; Tyrell not authorized; service invalid under 15-6-4(d)(1). |
| Does SDCL 15-2-31 extend time to complete service within 60 days? | The 60-day extension allowed service by a private process server within the extension. | Doctrine of last antecedent misapplies 15-2-31; private process server not within two allowed methods. | Yes; 15-2-31 extends time and permits timely service by a private server, relating back to delivery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Truesdell, 574 N.W.2d 627 (S.D. 1998) (substantial-compliance doctrine when actual notice plus substantial compliance suffices)
- White Eagle v. City of Fort Pierre, 606 N.W.2d 926 (S.D. 2000) (exhaustive list of serviceable parties; no substantial-compliance allowance when proper parties can be found)
- Meisel v. Piggly Wiggly Corp., 418 N.W.2d 321 (S.D. 1988) (extension of time under SDCL 15-2-31 contemplated when initial service was ineffective)
- State Auto Ins. Cos. v. B.N.C., 702 N.W.2d 386 (S.D. 2005) (plain meaning governs statutory construction; limits of statutory terms)
- Hartley v. Jerry’s Radio & Elec. Shop, 48 N.W.2d 925 (S.D. 1951) (purpose of service is notice, but notice alone is not sufficient without compliance)