- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KHETAM NIMER, an individual, 

and MONA HAMED, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 14-13689 

v. 

 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

ADAM TOURS OF NEW YORK, INC., 

a corporation, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DOC. 20) 

 Defendant Adam Tours of New York, Inc., seeks to set aside the 

default judgment entered against it on June 3, 2015. Defendant contends 

that the judgment is void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) 

because it was not properly served with the summons and complaint. 

According to Defendant, the company first became aware of the judgment 

when its bank account was garnished in 2018. 

BACKGROUND FACTS 

 According to the return of service form, Plaintiffs served Defendant on 

December 29, 2014, by unrestricted certified mail. Doc. 11. The return 

receipt contains an illegible signature, and no printed name indicating who 

signed for the package. The return receipt was addressed to “Adam Tours 
- 2 - 

of New York, Inc.,” rather than a specific individual. Defendant avers that 

none of its six employees signed the return receipt accepting the summons 

and complaint. Doc. 20 at Ex. D (affidavits). 

 After Defendant failed to respond to the complaint, Plaintiffs sought a 

clerk’s entry of default and a default judgment, which was entered on June 

3, 2015, in the amount of $250,000 for each Plaintiff. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS 

 “Due process requires proper service of process for a court to have 

jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of the parties.” O.J. Dist., Inc. v. Hornell 

Brewing Co., Inc., 340 F.3d 345, 353 (6th Cir. 2003). If Defendant was not 

properly served, the court lacks jurisdiction over the corporation, the default 

judgment is void, and the court must set the judgment aside under Rule 

60(b)(4). See Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 108 (6th Cir. 1995) 

(“A judgment is void under 60(b)(4) ‘if the court that rendered it lacked 

jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner 

inconsistent with due process of law.’”). 

 Proper service of process on a corporation is accomplished pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), which provides that a corporation 

must be served: 

(1) in a judicial district of the United States: 

(A)in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an 

individual; or 
- 3 - 

(B)by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to 

an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent 

authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 

process and – if the agent is one authorized by statute and 

the statute so requires – by also mailing a copy of each to 

the defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Rule 4(e)(1) provides that an individual may be 

served by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought 

in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is 

located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Therefore, a 

corporation, like an individual, may be served in accordance with state law. 

In this case, Plaintiffs may serve Defendant in accordance with the law of 

where the court is located (Michigan) or where service is made (New York). 

 Plaintiffs argue that service was proper under Michigan Court Rule 

2.105(A),1 which provides: 

(A) Individuals. Process may be served on a resident or 

nonresident individual by 

(1) delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the 

defendant personally; or 

(2) sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by 

registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and 

delivery restricted to the addressee. Service is made when 

the defendant acknowledges receipt of the mail. A copy of 

the return receipt signed by the defendant must be attached 

to proof showing service under subrule (A)(2). 

M.C.R. 2.105(A). Defendant contends that M.C.R. 2.105(D), which 

 

1 Plaintiffs do not argue that service was proper under New York law. 
- 4 - 

concerns service on corporations, applies: 

(D) Private Corporations, Domestic and Foreign. Service of 

process on a domestic or foreign corporation may be made by 

(1) serving a summons and a copy of the complaint on an 

officer or the resident 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; 

(3) serving a summons and a copy of the complaint on 

the last presiding officer, president, cashier, secretary, or 

treasurer of a corporation that has ceased to do business 

by failing to keep up its organization by the appointment 

of officers or otherwise, or whose term of existence has 

expired; 

(4) sending a summons and a copy of the complaint by 

registered mail to the corporation or an appropriate 

corporation officer and to the Michigan Bureau of 

Commercial Services, Corporation Division if 

(a) the corporation has failed to appoint and 

maintain a resident agent or to file a certificate of 

that appointment as required by law; 

(b) the corporation has failed to keep up its 

organization by the appointment of officers or 

otherwise; or 

(c) the corporation’s term of existence has expired. 

M.C.R. 2.105(D). 

 Defendant is correct that service “following state law” pursuant to 

Rule 4(h)(1) and 4(e)(1) requires service on a corporation to be 

accomplished as set forth in M.C.R. 2.105(D), not M.C.R. 2.105(A). See 

O.J. Dist., 340 F.3d at 355 (service on a corporation under Rules 4(h)(1) 

and 4(e)(1) in accordance with Michigan law must be in compliance with 
- 5 - 

M.C.R. 2.105(D)). Plaintiff’s attempted service by unrestricted registered 

mail does not comply with M.C.R. 2.105(D). Etherly v. Rehabitat Sys. of 

Michigan, No. 13-11360, 2013 WL 3946079 at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 

2013) (“[S]ervice of process by certified mail is not proper service on a 

Michigan corporation.”); Harper v. ACS-Inc., No. 10-12112, 2010 WL 

4366501, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2010) (“[C]ourts in the Eastern District 

of Michigan consistently have held that proper service in Michigan does not 

include service by mail.”); Walker v. Brooke Corp., No. 08-14574, 2009 WL 

1689653, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2009) (“Cases in this district that have 

addressed the issue have held that the Michigan rules do not authorize 

service by registered mail on corporations.”). 

 Plaintiffs argue that service by mail is permitted by M.C.R. 

2.105(A)(2), which applies to service on individuals. However, Rule 4(e)(1) 

provides for service “following state law” – it does not say that a corporation 

may be served based upon the same state service rules that apply to 

individuals. Michigan law does not provide that a corporation may be 

served in the same manner as an individual. Moreover, even if the method 

of service set forth in M.C.R. 2.105(A)(2) (certified mail) was appropriate, 

Plaintiffs failed to comply with that provision, which requires that “delivery 

[be] restricted to the addressee.” Plaintiffs sent the summons and 

complaint by unrestricted certified mail. The individual who accepted the 
- 6 - 

mail is unidentified and there is no evidence that individual had the 

authority to accept service on behalf of Defendant. 

Under the circumstances, service of process was not proper under 

Rule 4(h)(1). Without proper service, the court lacks personal jurisdiction 

over Defendant.2

 See Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1156 

(6th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the default judgment is void and must be 

vacated. O.J. Dist., 340 F.3d at 353 (“[I]f service of process is not proper, 

the court must set aside an entry of default.”). 

CONCLUSION 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to set aside 

default judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the default judgment entered June 

3, 2015 (Doc. 19) is VACATED. 

Dated: February 28, 2019 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

2 Plaintiffs suggest that Defendant had actual notice of this action. Regardless, “actual 

knowledge of the action” does not cure “a technically defective service of process.” 

Friedman, 929 F.2d at 1156. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

February 28, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk