Set aside of a default; Improper service of process on a corporate defendant; MCL 600.1920; Proof of service; MCR 2.104(A)(1)

Holding that the trial court properly set aside the default entered against defendant-Hercules due to improper service of process, the court affirmed. Plaintiff contended the trial court erred in doing so without requiring Hercules to show good cause. The court disagreed. “A plaintiff may effect service of process on a corporate defendant by: ‘(1) leaving a summons and a copy of the complaint with any officer or the resident agent, or (2) leaving a summons and a copy of the complaint with any director, trustee, or person in charge of any office . . . and sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by registered mail . . . .’” The trial court did not err in determining that “plaintiff failed to properly serve Hercules with his original summons and complaint. Plaintiff’s process server attempted to leave the summons and original complaint with” Hercules’s general counsel (G), but G “did not accept service on Hercules’s behalf. The process server ultimately left the summons and complaint on a receptionist’s desk. Because the summons and complaint were not left with one of Hercules’s officers or resident agents, service of process was not proper under MCL 600.1920. Even if [G] was an officer or resident agent of Hercules, he did not sign or date the proof of service as required by MCR 2.104(A)(1). Because plaintiff did not properly serve his original complaint on Hercules, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Hercules when it entered the default.”