That was the first question Chief Justice Abrahamson asked counsel for the defendant during oral argument today in Johnson v. Cintas Corp. (2009 AP 2549). And it was a particularly appropriate one, because the issue before the court was whether the circuit court ever acquired personal jurisdiction over Cintas Corp. No. 2 to enter a default judgment against it, though that entity had never been named in the complaint, which erroneously named only the corporate parent, Cintas Corp.
The question’s answer was “Cintas Corp. No. 2.” Only Cintas Corp. No. 2 (a wholly owned subsidiary of Cintas Corp.) was registered to do business in Wisconsin, and Johnson served that entity, but he named only its parent in the summons and complaint. Six justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (Justice Prosser, as reported here, is not sitting on cases this month due to a health issue) tried to sort out the distinction between a fundamental and a technical defect. The circuit court believed that this was only a technical defect and entered a default judgment against Cintas Corp. No. 2, but the court of appeals reversed, vacating the default judgment, because both Cintas Corp. and Cintas Corp. No. 2 were real, operating companies, which made the mistake fundamental. Actual service and knowledge of the lawsuit did not matter.
Perhaps the most interesting discussion from the oral argument was the explanation of the plaintiff’s strategic decision that played a hand in bringing the case to the court. Johnson had the opportunity (indeed, the right) to amend his pleading to add Cintas Corp. No. 2, but he chose not to do so, believing that his best course was to litigate the validity of a default judgment, instead of his case’s merits.
In all events, the case promises to be the latest decision in the long-running line of cases concerning the difference between fundamental and technical defects, so the court’s opinion is one worth watching for.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.