Breach of contract; Motion to set aside a default judgment under MCR 2.603(D)(1); Good cause; Proper service; MCR 2.105(H); “Person in charge of an office”; Doctrine of noscitur a sociis; Meritorious defense; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a)

In this breach-of-contract case, the court held that defendants established good cause to set aside the default judgment. Also, “the trial court’s denial of the motion under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) was not outside the range of principled outcomes and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not setting aside the default judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a).” Thus, it reversed in part the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment and denying reconsideration under MCR 2.603(D)(1) and MCR 2.612(C), and remanded. Defendants argued that the trial court erred by denying their motion to set aside the default judgment under MCR 2.603(D)(1) as they had established good cause and a meritorious defense. As to defendant-Legend Health (a professional limited-liability company), plaintiff contended that he served the company via his process server in accordance with MCR 2.105(H)(2). “Because a ‘person in charge of an office’ is one with some authority to make decisions on behalf of an office, plaintiff’s service of process through” a medical assistant (M) to defendants was deficient. The court held that while “plaintiff mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to Complete Care’s [a professional corporation] principal office as required by the court rule, because [M] is not a ‘person in charge of an office,’ plaintiff did not properly serve defendants.” Thus, defendants established good cause to set aside the default judgment. However, this satisfied “only one prong of MCR 6.03(D)(1) as defendants must also establish they have a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s allegations.” The court concluded that “under MCR 2.603(D)(1), Legend Health presents sufficient facts in its affidavit to support its meritorious defense which arguably would afford it a defense against plaintiff’s claim.” However, it held that “because Complete Care did not present sufficient facts in the affidavit in support of the meritorious defense, it has not satisfied MCR 2.603(D)(1).”