## Facts

- Arthur Patterson, an African American patron, visited Nankin Café with friends; the café was owned by Wu Family Corporation and employed Henry Price as a bouncer.
- Price cleared the group’s table and told them to get their own drinks because no server was present; Price did not initially request Patterson’s identification.
- A friend brought Patterson an alcoholic drink; later, Price asked Patterson for identification.
- Patterson said he had no identification; Price told him he had to leave.
- Patterson testified he agreed to leave, but as he exited Price grabbed his arm, twisted it behind his back, and pushed him out; Patterson testified Price acted aggressively and Patterson feared harm.
- Patterson claimed physical injury (muscle strain in his arm, neck, and back) and later developed high blood pressure; his physicians could not determine the cause of the high blood pressure.
- Patterson also claimed fear of being in public places but did not obtain professional treatment for emotional harm.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment dismissing Patterson’s assault and battery claims against Price was proper due to ineffective service of process.
2. Whether Patterson produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision.
3. Whether Patterson’s remaining claims against Wu Family Corporation were barred from adjudication by an automatic bankruptcy stay.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Price dismissing the assault and battery claims due to ineffective service of process.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims for lack of evidence on essential elements, including required proof of severe distress and causation.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the café on negligent supervision because Patterson offered no evidence the employer knew or should have known Price posed a foreseeable risk to patrons.
- The court affirmed that remaining claims against Wu Family Corporation were not properly before the district court because they were subject to an automatic bankruptcy stay.

## Legal Principles

- Effective service of process is required to establish personal jurisdiction; failure to comply with service rules supports dismissal of claims against an unserved defendant.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress in Minnesota requires proof of extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or reckless disregard, causation, and severe emotional distress; unsupported assertions and lack of competent medical evidence may be insufficient at summary judgment.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires a zone-of-danger showing and objective evidence of distress with a physical manifestation and causation; absence of medical support for causation can be fatal.
- Negligent supervision requires evidence the employer knew or should have known of an employee’s propensity for harmful conduct and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
- An automatic bankruptcy stay bars continuation of judicial proceedings against the debtor on prepetition claims absent relief from the stay.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of claims against the bouncer for insufficient service, affirmed summary judgment on emotional-distress and negligent-supervision theories for lack of evidentiary support on required elements, and upheld the determination that remaining claims against the café were stayed by bankruptcy.


Patterson v. Wu Fam. Corp., 594 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)