DEBORAH SMILEY V DETROIT TIGERS BASEBALL CLUB
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DEBORAH SMILEY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 6, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 224507
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-919042-NO
DETROIT TIGERS BASEBALL CLUB,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition and dismissing the case for insufficient service. We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On June 18, 1999, plaintiff filed suit alleging that on June 20, 1996, she fell at Tiger
Stadium and sustained injuries. On September 17, 1999, the date the summons to the complaint
was to expire, plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve the summons and complaint at
defendant’s offices on Woodward Avenue. The process server was told that the proper location
for service was defendant’s offices at Tiger Stadium on Trumbull Avenue. The process server
went to that location and left the summons and complaint with a security guard.
Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1), (2), and (3),
arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the “Detroit Tigers Baseball Club” was a
non-existent entity,1 that the process issued was insufficient, and that service of process was
insufficient. In response, plaintiff asserted that her counsel was told by Kathy Nemecek, whom
counsel understood to be an employee of the Tigers, that service was sufficient. The trial court
1
Defendant stated that the proper name of the baseball organization is “Detroit Tigers, Inc.” The
trial court docket entries reflect that on October 25, 1999, plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint naming “Detroit Tigers, Inc.” as the defendant. The trial court docket entries do not
reflect that plaintiff received leave of the court to file the amended complaint, or that defendant
consented to the amendment. MCR 2.118(A)(2). The trial court’s order granting summary
disposition pertained only to the complaint naming “Detroit Tigers Baseball Club” as the
defendant.
-1-
granted defendant’s motion on the ground that service of process was insufficient.
2.116(C)(3).
MCR
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
MCR 2.105(D) deals with service of process on a domestic or foreign corporation, and
provides, in relevant part, that service may be made by:
(1) serving a summons and a copy of the complaint on an officer or the
registered agent;
(2) serving a summons and a copy of the complaint on a director, trustee,
or person in charge of an office or business establishment of the corporation and
sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by registered mail, addressed to
the principal office of the corporation;
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We disagree and affirm. Plaintiff’s process server left the summons and complaint
with a security guard at defendant’s offices on Trumbull Avenue. This attempt at service of
process did not satisfy the requirements of MCR 2.105(D)(1) or (2). Furthermore, plaintiff has
not established that Kathy Nemecek, who was identified as an employee of Little Caesar’s, Inc.
at the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary disposition, was connected with defendant in
such a way that her knowledge of the existence of the action would preclude dismissal for
improper service. MCR 2.105(J)(3) does not excuse a failure of service. Summary disposition
was properly granted.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
