McCorquodale v. DG Retail, LLC
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-00518
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In McCorquodale v. Dollar General, Judge Tostrud denied Dollar General’s service-of-process motion without prejudice because factual disputes required further proceedings.
Steven McCorquodale and Dollar General Corporation; the order addressed service of process and the possible timeliness of McCorquodale’s employment claims.
What happened
In McCorquodale v. Dollar General Corporation, Steven McCorquodale, representing himself, claimed that his former employer discriminated against him because of his age and retaliated against him. Dollar General removed the case from Minnesota state court and asked the federal court to dismiss it because McCorquodale had not properly served the company.
The court found that McCorquodale’s first attempt—sending the summons and complaint by certified mail—did not satisfy Minnesota’s service rules. But the parties gave conflicting accounts of his later attempt to personally serve a receptionist at Dollar General’s headquarters. Because the court could not resolve that factual dispute from the written materials, it did not dismiss the case. The court also declined to dismiss based on filing deadlines because McCorquodale’s filings did not conclusively establish that his claims were untimely, and he could be understood to raise equitable tolling.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Dollar General’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process without prejudice to refiling if Dollar General sought an evidentiary hearing. The order did not decide whether McCorquodale’s claims were timely or whether they ultimately had merit.
The detailed version
- McCorquodale v. DG Retail, LLC · No. 0:20-cv-00518
- Eric Tostrud
- May 29, 2020
Background
Steven McCorquodale, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dollar General Corporation in Minnesota state court. He alleged age discrimination and retaliation under federal and Minnesota law. McCorquodale had filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, cross-filed with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, and received dismissal and right-to-sue notices from both agencies.
McCorquodale filed the lawsuit on January 15, 2020. He first attempted service by sending the summons and complaint by certified mail to Dollar General’s corporate headquarters. The court held that this did not comply with Minnesota law because it was not personal service, did not include the required acknowledgment form for waiver of service, and was not an authorized method of serving a nonresident corporation. Dollar General’s receipt of the documents and removal of the case to federal court did not cure the defective service.
After removal, McCorquodale attempted personal service through an agent on a receptionist, Ashley Campbell, at Dollar General’s headquarters. McCorquodale’s process server, Scott Nance, stated that Campbell identified herself as someone in charge, was told that the documents were a summons and complaint, and accepted service. Campbell stated that she was a lobby receptionist, was not authorized to accept service, and had told the process server that a company lawyer would need to accept legal papers. The court found that these accounts could not be reconciled on the written record.
Legal Analysis
Because the first service attempt occurred before removal, its sufficiency was governed by Minnesota law. Because the second attempt occurred after removal, the court applied federal service rules, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), together with state-law methods incorporated through Rule 4(e)(1). Those rules generally require service on a corporation’s officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to accept service.
The court explained that a plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss for insufficient service must present initial evidence that service was proper. When the parties provide conflicting evidence about service and the dispute cannot be resolved on paper, an evidentiary hearing is the appropriate procedure. The court could not determine whether Campbell had authority to accept service or whether the service attempt otherwise complied with the applicable rules.
Dollar General also argued that the claims were barred by statutes of limitations. The court treated that argument as similar to seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which is a rule allowing dismissal when the complaint itself shows that the plaintiff has no legally viable claim. A limitations defense ordinarily cannot support dismissal at that stage unless the complaint clearly establishes the defense. Here, the complaint alleged that the lawsuit was filed within the relevant period, and McCorquodale identified the dates he received the agency notices and argued that his filing met the stated deadlines. The court said he could fairly be understood to be asserting equitable tolling and that it would be inappropriate to resolve that issue in this context.
Ruling
The court denied Dollar General’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process without prejudice to refiling if Dollar General sought an evidentiary hearing. The court did not decide whether the later service was valid, whether statutes of limitations barred the claims, or whether McCorquodale would prevail on the discrimination and retaliation claims.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.