## Facts

- Jim Dill filed a Riverside County Superior Court personal-injury action in March 1987 alleging negligence and strict liability, naming Berquist Construction Company, Inc. (Oregon) and Strata America (Utah) among the defendants.
- In June 1988, Dill attempted out-of-state service by first-class mail with return receipt requested, sending the summons, complaint, and statement of damages to each corporation’s out-of-state address.
- The mailings were addressed only to the corporate entities (no officer, general manager, or authorized agent was named).
- Return receipts were signed by individuals not shown to be persons authorized to accept service under the corporate-service statute.
- Neither corporation responded; defaults were entered in May 1989, and a $200,000 default judgment was entered in April 1991.
- In late 1991 and thereafter, the corporations specially appeared and challenged the default judgment and sought dismissal, asserting lack of valid service and expiration of the three-year service period.
- The trial court set aside the default and default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the action against the two corporations for failure to serve within three years.
- Dill appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether mailing process to an out-of-state corporation addressed only to the corporate name constitutes valid service when no person listed in the corporate-service statute is identified as the recipient.
2. Whether a default and default judgment entered without valid service are void for lack of personal jurisdiction and may be set aside after judgment.
3. Whether the action must be dismissed when valid service is not completed within three years of filing under the mandatory service deadline.
4. Whether actual notice to the corporate defendants can cure noncompliance with statutory service requirements.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order setting aside the defaults and default judgment and dismissing the action as to Berquist and Strata.
- Service was invalid because the mailings were not directed to an officer or other person authorized to receive service on behalf of a corporation.
- Because service was invalid, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction; the defaults and default judgment were void and properly vacated.
- Since Dill did not accomplish valid service within three years of commencing the action, dismissal as to those defendants was required.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes governing the method of out-of-state service by mail do not replace statutes specifying who must be served to effect service on a corporation; both requirements must be satisfied.
- Service on a corporation requires service on a statutorily specified officer or authorized agent; addressing process only to the corporate entity is insufficient.
- A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction due to defective service is void and may be set aside even after entry of judgment; a special appearance to contest jurisdiction does not waive the objection.
- Actual or constructive notice of the lawsuit does not cure failure to comply with jurisdictional service-of-process statutes.
- If a defendant is not validly served within three years after the action is commenced, dismissal as to that defendant is mandatory absent a statutory exception.

## Conclusion

The court held that mailing process to out-of-state corporations addressed only to the corporate names did not effect service because it failed to identify and serve a statutorily authorized corporate officer or agent; the resulting default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the claims were properly dismissed for failure to complete valid service within the three-year period.


Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746 (Ct. App. 1994)