Jackson v. Marathon Corporation

Background

Howard Jackson, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he was fired from his cashier job because of his race and in retaliation for reporting misconduct by coworkers. The opinion identifies his former employer as Northern Tier Retail, LLC, doing business as “Speedway” gas stations and convenience stores. Jackson’s complaint, however, named “Marathon Corporation” as the defendant.

Jackson filed the action in Minnesota state court, and the defendant removed it to federal court. Before removal, two unidentified men left papers titled “Summons” and “Complaint” at a Speedway office in Woodbury, Minnesota. The papers were left with Travis Terhell and Boyice Williams, employees in Speedway’s information-technology group. The employees said they could not accept the papers and did not take them. The opinion also states that the papers left at the office differed from the complaint filed with the state court.

Rule and analysis

The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court ruled on the service issue. Because the case had been removed after the attempted service, the court applied Minnesota’s service rules.

Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.03(c) requires service on a corporation by delivering the summons and complaint to an officer, managing agent, or another agent authorized to receive service. The court explained that a managing agent generally must have power to exercise independent judgment for the corporation or hold a position of sufficient rank to make it reasonably certain the corporation would learn of the service. Minnesota law requires strict compliance with these requirements, and actual notice of a lawsuit does not by itself make defective service effective.

The court found that neither Terhell nor Williams was an officer or managing agent, and neither was authorized to accept service for Speedway. Jackson did not provide evidence or plead facts showing that leaving the papers with the two employees at the office was valid service. The court acknowledged that self-represented litigants receive certain procedural leniencies, but said that this status did not excuse compliance with Minnesota’s service requirements.

Disposition

The court held that service was ineffective and that personal jurisdiction over Speedway was lacking. It granted the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Jackson’s Complaint without prejudice. The order did not state that the motion was granted in part or denied in part. Judge Eric C. Tostrud directed that judgment be entered accordingly.