William Wells v. Brandon Rhodes
592 F. App'x 373
6th Cir.2014Background
- On March 3, 2011 a five-foot wooden cross, with racist slurs and “KKK Will Make U PAY,” was burned on the lawn of plaintiffs (African-American family); D.G. (age 16) and Brandon Rhodes admitted involvement. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1985(3), 3617 and Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.70 (ethnic intimidation), naming Rhodes, D.G., and D.G.’s parents Alisa and Larry Gandee.
- Alisa Gandee was personally served June 8, 2011. Summons/complaint for Larry and D.G. were left with Alisa at work; that method did not satisfy federal or Ohio rules for service on those individuals (and D.G. was not properly served).
- Plaintiffs obtained default and then default judgment against Alisa after she failed to respond; a magistrate hearing on August 22, 2011 was held on the motion for default judgment (Alisa attended; Larry attended and actively participated; D.G. did not attend).
- The magistrate recommended default judgments as to all defendants; the district court adopted the recommendation and entered default judgments (awarding damages and fees). Counsel later appeared for all defendants and moved under Rule 60(b)(4) asserting lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service and failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for D.G.
- The district court denied relief; later a separate default judgment was entered against D.G. on remaining federal claims. On appeal, defendants challenged the judgments as void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Larry Gandee’s default judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction | Service was proper by delivery to Alisa (and Larry participated at the hearing) so judgment should stand | Service on Alisa did not satisfy Rules 4(e)/(g) or Ohio rules for Larry; defective service invalidates jurisdiction | Judgment against Larry affirmed: his voluntary appearance and active participation at hearing constituted legal submission/forfeiture of service defense |
| Whether D.G.’s default judgments are void for lack of personal jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argued D.G. was effectively represented by parents and prior proceedings resolved claims | Defendants argued D.G. was not properly served; no guardian ad litem appointed for the minor; parents’ appearances do not waive service defense for D.G. | Judgments against D.G. vacated: personal jurisdiction over D.G. was not established and Rule 60(b)(4) relief was warranted |
| Whether a parent’s appearance or participation can substitute for proper service/guardian for a minor under Rule 55(b)(2) and Rule 4(g) | Plaintiffs argued parents’ appearance sufficed under Rule 55(b)(2) and that a court-appointed guardian was not required | Defendants argued Rule 4(g)/Ohio rules require proper service on the minor and that parents’ participation does not cure defective service on the minor | Court held parents’ participation does not cure defective service on the minor; Rule 55(b)(2) presupposes personal jurisdiction over the minor |
| Whether failure to give seven days’ written notice of default hearing violated due process and rendered judgment void | Defendants claimed lack of 7-day notice under Rule 55(b)(2) made judgment void | Plaintiffs contended notice requirement did not apply because defendants had not appeared before the hearing; Larry actually appeared and did not object | Court rejected as voidness ground: lack of prior seven-day notice was procedural and not shown to violate due process; judgment against Larry still valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (judgment is void only for certain jurisdictional errors or deprivation of notice/opportunity to be heard)
- Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Patel, 445 F.3d 899 (6th Cir.) (personal jurisdiction is waivable by submission; distinction between subject-matter and personal jurisdiction)
- King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir.) (without proper service, consent, waiver, or forfeiture, court may not exercise personal jurisdiction)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (service of process is required to allow court to exercise power over defendant)
- Omni Capital Int’l Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (service of process is the means by which a defendant is brought within court’s jurisdiction)
- Northridge Church v. Charter Twp. of Plymouth, 647 F.3d 606 (6th Cir.) (district court must grant Rule 60(b)(4) relief when underlying judgment is void)
- Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514 (6th Cir.) (defects in personal jurisdiction are not waived by default until after entry of default judgment; look to whether actions constitute legal submission)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 464 N.E.2d 538 (Ohio 1984) (personal jurisdiction can be acquired by service, voluntary appearance/submission, or certain acts constituting involuntary submission)