Service on a foreign corporation; MCR 2.105(D); Bullington v Corbell; Notice cure for improper service; MCR 2.105(K)(3); Tucker v Eaton; Law of the case; Rott v Rott; Summary disposition burden; Quinto v Cross & Peters Co

The court held that plaintiff failed to properly serve the foreign corporate defendant (Superior Tire) under MCR 2.105(D) and failed to show that improper service nevertheless “inform[ed] the defendant of the action” within the service period as required to avoid dismissal under MCR 2.105(K)(3). Plaintiff sued over injuries from a forklift accident, and later added Superior Tire as a defendant. He attempted service by sending the summons and complaint via certified mail to Superior Tire’s Pennsylvania headquarters, where an hourly employee signed the receipt. The trial court initially entered default and default judgment, but in an earlier appeal the court vacated the default because “Superior Tire was never properly served” and remanded. On remand Superior Tire obtained summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(3) because service was never effectuated before the summons expired. On appeal, the court held the prior decision that certified mail did not satisfy MCR 2.105(D)’s personal-service requirements controlled under law of the case. It reiterated that the rules “‘require personal service on an officer, registered agent, director, trustee, or person in charge of an office or business establishment’” and they “‘do not contemplate that a plaintiff may use certified mail as an initial form of service’” on any corporate entity. The court further held “MCR 2.105(K)(3) ‘forgives errors in the manner or content of service or process [but] does not forgive a failure to serve process.’” The dispositive question was whether the defective attempt actually provided notice to “‘any person with authority to act for defendant’” within the time for service. The court found no record evidence that an authorized person received timely notice, and rejected plaintiff’s request to depose the hourly employee because the argument was not developed and therefore abandoned. It also held that hlis theory that the employee must have forwarded the mailing was “conclusory speculation” insufficient to create a material factual dispute under Quinto, and that unrelated pre-suit communications with Superior Tire personnel occurred outside the summons period. Affirmed.