Smith v. Genuine Auto Parts, Inc.
3:12-cv-00273
W.D.N.C.Dec 28, 2012Background
- Smith filed suit in North Carolina state court asserting ERISA-related claims against Genuine Auto Parts Inc. and MetLife.
- Defendants contended improper service and non-identical corporate entities; misidentification of Genuine Auto Parts and separate status of MetLife were alleged issues.
- The case was removed to the Western District of North Carolina in 2012, with MetLife consenting to removal.
- GPC and MetLife moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rules 12(b)(4), (5), and (6).
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for insufficient process and service; Smith objected.
- The district court adopted the M&R and dismissed all claims for lack of proper service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service before removal was proper | Smith argues service on MetLife was adequate. | MetLife contends no proper service occurred; service was on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, not MetLife. | Insufficient service; lacks personal jurisdiction over MetLife. |
| Whether MetLife and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company are the same entity for purposes of service | Identity is a factual question for trial. | MetLife and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company are separate entities; service on one does not bind the other. | Identity is a legal question; MetLife is separate; service on Metropolitan Life is insufficient for MetLife. |
| Whether the statute of limitations bars Smith's ERISA/contract claim | Continual denial periods toll the limitations period. | No continual violation toll; NC three-year limit applies from denial of benefits. | Claims time-barred under North Carolina law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213 (4th Cir. 1982) (courts may consider extrinsic materials on jurisdictional issues)
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., 733 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1984) (personal jurisdiction requires proper service and notice)
- Jones v. Whitaker, 296 S.E.2d 27 (N.C. 1982) (misdescription in a summons may be corrected if identity is clear)
- Harris v. Maready, 319 S.E.2d 912 (N.C. 1984) (strict construction of service; technical defects may invalidate service)
- Stack v. Union Reg’l Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 614 S.E.2d 378 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (state service rules govern when jurisdiction is challenged)
- Cotter v. E. Conference of Teamsters Ret. Plan, 898 F.2d 424 (4th Cir. 1990) (continues or repeated denials do not restart the limitations period)
- Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (identity of parties for purposes of jurisdiction is a legal question)