Title: Christina Holman v. Family Health Plan
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP001490-FT
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 7, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1490-FT 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
Christina Holman and QTroy Holman,  
 
Plaintiffs-Respondents, 
 
v. 
Family Health Plan,  
 
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, 
Sharon Kadamian and Continental Casualty 
Company,  
 
Defendants.  
 
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  216 Wis. 2d 100, 573 N.W.2d 577 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1998-Published) 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
July 7, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
October 13, 1998 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Racine 
 
JUDGE: 
Wayne J. Marik 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were 
briefs by Ryan J. Hetzel and Daryl W. Laatsch, S.C., West Bend 
and oral argument by Ryan J. Hetzel. 
 
 
For the plaintiffs-respondents there were briefs 
by Mark J. Leuck, Chris G. Halverson and Schoone, Fortune, Leuck, 
Kelly & Pitts, S.C.., Racine and oral argument by Mark J. Leuck. 
 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Christina Holman and Qtroy Holman,  
 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents, 
 
     v. 
 
Family Health Plan,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
Sharon Kadamian and Continental Casualty  
Company,  
 
          Defendants.  
FILED 
 
JUL 7, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded. 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This is a 
review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Holman 
v. Family Health Plan, 216 Wis. 2d 100, 573 N.W.2d 577 (Ct. App. 
1997), which affirmed an order of the Circuit Court for Racine 
County, Wayne J. Marik, Judge.  The circuit court denied the 
motion of Family Health Plan to reopen the default judgment 
entered against it. 
¶2 
The issue presented is whether a default judgment can 
be entered on Family Health Plan's failure to answer the 
original complaint when prior to the expiration of the 20-day 
period in which to answer the original complaint, the plaintiffs 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
2 
filed an amended complaint in the circuit court but did not 
serve it on Family Health Plan.1 
¶3 
We hold that the default judgment against defendant 
Family Health Plan under the circumstances of this case was a 
nullity and that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in 
denying the post-judgment motion to reopen the default judgment. 
 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals 
and remand the cause to the circuit court to vacate the default 
judgment. 
I 
¶4 
The facts necessary to this appeal are undisputed.  On 
July 5, 1994, Christina Holman was allegedly injured in an 
automobile accident with a car driven by Sharon Kadamian.  At 
that time, she was covered under a group health insurance policy 
provided by Family Health Plan, and Family Health Plan paid a 
portion of her medical expenses related to the accident. 
¶5 
On January 7, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a complaint 
in the circuit court for personal injuries against Kadamian and 
                     
1 Family Health Plan did not raise this issue in the circuit 
court, the court of appeals or this court.  Instead, Family 
Health Plan argued that no default judgment should have been 
entered because it was improperly named as a party defendant as 
follows: 1) Family Health Family Health Plan was a subrogated 
health insurer; (2) Family Health Family Health Plan should have 
been named in the complaint as a party plaintiff rather than as 
party defendant pursuant 
Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 
803.03(2)(a)   
(1995-96); (3) because it was named as a party defendant instead 
of a party plaintiff, Family Health Family Health Plan need not 
file a responsive pleading to the complaint; and (4) because 
Family Health Plan need not file a responsive pleading to the 
complaint, no default judgment is possible. 
This court raised the issue we address and gave the parties 
an opportunity to brief it. 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
3 
Kadamian's insurance carrier, CNA Insurance Company.  They also 
named Family Health Plan as a defendant because there was a 
possibility that Family Health Plan might assert a claim for 
subrogation or reimbursement against the plaintiffs for its 
payment of medical expenses.  On January 17, 1997, the 
plaintiffs served the complaint on both Kadamian and Family 
Health Plan. 
¶6 
Six days later, on January 23, 1997, the plaintiffs 
filed an amended complaint in the circuit court.  The amended 
complaint was complete in itself; it contained no reference to 
the original complaint or any part thereof.  The only difference 
between the original and amended complaints was that the amended 
complaint  changed the identity of Kadamian's liability insurer 
from CNA Insurance Company to Continental Casualty Company.  The 
plaintiffs served the amended complaint on Kadamian by mail and 
made personal service on Continental Casualty Company.  They did 
not, however, serve the amended complaint on Family Health Plan. 
¶7 
When Family Health Plan failed to answer the original 
complaint within the statutory 20-day period from the service of 
the original complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for 
default judgment, attaching proof of the January 17, 1997, 
service on Family Health Plan of the original complaint.  On 
February 11, 1997, the circuit court entered default judgment 
against Family Health Plan on the original complaint, dismissed 
Family Health Plan from the suit and barred any claim of 
subrogation to which Family Health Plan might have been 
entitled. 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
4 
¶8 
After entry of the default judgment, Family Health 
Plan filed an answer to the original complaint and motions for 
relief from the default judgment and to amend the case caption 
to have it named an involuntary plaintiff rather than a 
defendant.2  The circuit court denied both motions, holding that 
"Family Health Plan's motion does not set forth as a basis for 
relief from the judgment any claim of mistake, inadvertence or 
excusable neglect" as required by Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 806.07 
(1995-96).3 
¶9 
The court of appeals affirmed the default judgment, 
holding that Family Health Plan "was required to file a timely 
answer or other responsive pleading raising its misjoinder 
defense pursuant to § 802.06(1) and (2)(a), Stats," and that 
when Family Health Plan failed to do so, the circuit court 
properly entered default judgment.  Holman, 216 Wis. 2d at 110. 
II 
¶10 During oral argument this court raised for the first 
time the question of whether a default judgment can be entered 
on Family Health Plan's failure to answer the original complaint 
when the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint prior to the 
expiration of the 20-day period in which to answer the original 
                     
2 Along with its untimely answer to the original complaint, 
Family Health Plan also filed a counterclaim, cross-claim and 
notice of retainer. 
3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1995-96 text unless otherwise noted.  
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
5 
complaint.  Here, the plaintiffs filed such an amended complaint 
in the circuit court but did not serve it on Family Health Plan.4 
¶11 A circuit court has discretion in deciding whether to 
grant a default judgment.  Similarly, a circuit court has 
discretion in deciding whether to grant relief from a default 
judgment.  See Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 806.07; Johns v. Oneida 
County, 201 Wis. 2d 600, 605, 549 N.W.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1996).  A 
circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it holds 
an erroneous view of the facts or the law, fails to use a 
demonstrated rational process in its conclusion or reaches a 
conclusion that a reasonable judge could not have reached.  We 
conclude that as a matter of law, the circuit court should not 
have entered the default judgment and Family Health Plan should 
have been granted relief from the default judgment. 
¶12 We begin with the oft-stated and simple rule that 
would appear to answer the question posed in this case: an 
amended complaint supersedes or supplants the prior complaint.5  
                     
4 The parties stipulated that the amended summons and 
complaint were filed with the circuit court but were not served 
on Family Health Plan at any time.  The brief filed by Family 
Health Plan's attorney states: "Neither Family Health Plan nor 
its attorneys were aware of the Amended Summons and Complaint 
having been filed prior to the appeal being brought in this 
case.  The attorney from this office who was handling the appeal 
may have been aware of the amended pleadings when they were 
identified as part of the record when it was forwarded to the 
Court of Appeals.  This writer was not aware of the amended 
pleadings until issues relating to them were raised by the 
Supreme Court." 
5 See J.F. Ahern Co. v. Building Comm'n, 114 Wis. 2d 69, 79, 
336 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1983); Schweiger v. Loewi & Co., Inc., 
65 Wis. 2d 56, 58, 221 N.W.2d 882 (1974); Werner v. Reimer, 255 
Wis. 386, 388, 39 N.W.2d 917 (1949), overruled on other grounds, 
In re Estate of Boots, 73 Wis. 2d 207, 215, 243 N.W.2d 225 
(1976). 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
6 
When an amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint, the 
amended complaint becomes the only live, operative complaint in 
the case on which default judgment can be entered.  A default 
judgment entered on a complaint that has been superseded is a 
nullity. 
¶13 The difficulty with the oft-stated rule about amended 
complaints and prior complaints is that it does not answer the 
question presented in this case:  When does an amended complaint 
supersede a prior complaint?  The answer to the question of when 
an amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint depends on the 
circumstances of the case. 
¶14 We conclude that under the facts of the present case, 
the amended complaint superseded the original complaint as to 
Family Health Plan when the plaintiffs filed the amended 
complaint in the circuit court. 
¶15 We reach this conclusion on the basis of the following 
reasoning.  The plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their 
complaint, which they could do as a matter of course.6  They 
were, however, required to serve the amended complaint on Family 
Health Plan.7  Family Health Plan would have had 20 days from the 
                     
6 Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 802.09(1) provides: 
A party may amend the party's pleading once as a 
matter of course at any time within 6 months after the 
summons and complaint are filed or within the time set 
in a scheduling order under s. 802.10.  Otherwise a 
party may amend the pleading only by leave of court or 
by written consent of the adverse party; and leave 
shall be freely given at any stage of the action when 
justice so requires.   
 
7 Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(1) provides inter alia that 
"every pleading unless the court otherwise orders . . . shall be 
served upon each of the parties." 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
7 
date of service to answer the amended complaint.8  Family Health 
Plan has been deprived of the opportunity to answer the amended 
complaint within this time period. 
¶16 The plaintiffs failed to serve the amended complaint 
on Family Health Plan but filed the amended complaint in the 
circuit court.  According to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(4), the 
filing of a paper constitutes a certification that a copy of the 
paper has been served on all parties required to be served 
"except as the person effecting the filing may otherwise 
stipulate 
in 
writing."9  
The 
plaintiffs' 
attorneys 
filed 
affidavits of mailing or personal service of the amended 
complaint on the parties other than Family Health Plan.  The 
parties have, in response to this court's questions, stipulated 
that the amended complaint was not in fact served on Family 
Health Plan.   
                     
8 Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 802.09(1) provides inter alia: 
A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading 
within 20 days after service of the amended pleading 
unless (a) the court otherwise orders or (b) no 
responsive pleading is required or permitted under 
s.802.01(1). 
 
In 1997, the legislature amended this provision changing 
the period in which to answer an amended pleading from 20 to 45 
days.  See 1997 Wis. Act 187, § 18.  
9 Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(4) provides:  
All papers after the summons required to be served 
upon a party . . . shall be filed with the court 
within a reasonable time after service.  The filing of 
any 
paper 
required 
to 
be 
served 
constitutes 
a 
certification by the party or attorney effecting the 
filing that that a copy of such paper has been timely 
served on all parties required to be served, except as 
the 
person 
effecting 
the 
filing 
may 
otherwise 
stipulate in writing. 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
8 
¶17 There is no reason why the plaintiffs in this case 
should be relieved from complying with the minimal service 
requirements established for amended complaints or why they 
should benefit from their failure to comply with the rules of 
service.  Family Health Plan moved for relief from the default 
judgment within a short time after its entry and promptly 
proceeded with appeal after its motion for relief was denied.  
Therefore, the plaintiffs have had prompt notice that the 
default judgment was being challenged, and the plaintiffs were 
not prejudiced by Family Health Plan's seeking to overturn the 
default judgment.  A case in which a defaulting defendant moves 
for relief from a default judgment a long time after entry of 
the judgment may well be treated differently because in that 
case prejudice to the plaintiff is more likely and the interest 
in the finality of the judgment weighs heavier.   
¶18 Under all of the circumstances in this case, we strive 
for a resolution of this case that would, to the extent possible 
and without undue burden on either the plaintiffs or Family 
Health Plan, put the parties in substantially the same positions 
they would have been in had the plaintiffs served Family Health 
Plan with the amended complaint.  To accomplish this goal, we 
conclude that in this case the amended complaint superseded the 
original complaint when the amended complaint was filed in the 
circuit court.  We further conclude that the default judgment in 
this case is a nullity because it was entered on the superseded 
original complaint.10 
                     
10 Therefore, we do not address the other arguments made by 
the parties for why default judgment was or was not proper.  
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
9 
¶19 An amended complaint supplants the original complaint 
when the amended complaint makes no reference to the original 
complaint and incorporates by reference no part of the original 
complaint.  The question is when this supplanting takes place 
with respect to a party who was not served with the amended 
complaint.  The plaintiffs' filing of the amended complaint in 
the circuit court before Family Health Plan's time for answering 
the original complaint had expired was, in effect, notice that 
the plaintiffs substituted the amended complaint for the 
original complaint.  Thus the plaintiffs foreclosed their 
ability to obtain default judgment against Family Health Plan on 
the original complaint when they filed the amended complaint.  
Because the default judgment in this case was based on the 
original rather than the amended complaint, it is a nullity. 
¶20 Our decision is consistent with decisions of other 
state courts.  See, e.g., Reichert v. TRW, Inc., 611 A.2d 1191 
(Pa. 1992) (filing of amended pleading is a withdrawal of the 
original complaint; default judgment had to be entered on 
amended complaint that was admittedly not served on the 
defendant); Harris v. Shoults, 877 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. App. 1994) 
(default judgment in accord with original pleading reversed; 
amended pleading that was not served supersedes original 
pleading even as to claims identical to those in the amended 
pleading). 
¶21 Our conclusion also comports with federal practice.  
For guidance in interpreting our rules of civil procedure, this 
court will look to the interpretation of analogous federal 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
10
rules.11  The federal counterpart to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
802.09(1) relating to the amendment of pleadings is Rule 15(a) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
¶22 Rule 15(a) is interpreted as providing that an amended 
pleading that is complete in itself and does not reference or 
adopt any portion of the prior pleading supersedes the prior 
pleading.  3 Moore's Federal Practice § 15.17[3] (3d ed. 1998). 
 An amended complaint, on its submission to the court, becomes 
the operative complaint in the case.12  Duda v. Franklin Park 
Public School Dist., 133 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998). 
III 
¶23 The plaintiffs make four arguments to support the 
validity of the default judgment.  First, the plaintiffs argue 
that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.02(1) they had until 
March 28 (60 days after the filing of the amended complaint) to 
serve the amended complaint on Family Health Plan.13  Relying on 
                     
11 See, e.g., Schauer v. DeNeveu Homeowners Ass'n, 194 
Wis. 2d 62, 73, 533 N.W.2d 470 (1995); State v. Peterson, 104 
Wis. 2d 616, 632-34, 312 N.W.2d 784 (1981).  
12 The plaintiffs do not argue that the amended complaint 
relates back to the original complaint and the relation back 
somehow 
saves 
the 
default 
judgment. 
 
The 
relation 
back 
provisions of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 802.09(3) are not applicable 
in this case. The evident purpose behind § 802.09(3) is to 
ameliorate 
the 
effect 
of 
the 
statute 
of 
limitations 
in 
situations where the original pleadings provided fair notice to 
the opposing party of the claim or defense raised.  Korkow v. 
General Casualty Co., 117 Wis. 2d 187, 196, 344 N.W.2d 108 
(1984); Biggart v. Barstad, 182 Wis. 2d 421, 430, 513 N.W.2d 681 
(Ct. App.), review denied, 520 N.W.2d 90 (1994).  
13 Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.02(1) provides that a civil 
action is commenced as to any defendant when a summons and 
complaint naming the defendant are filed with the court, 
provided service of authenticated copies of the summons and the 
complaint is made upon the defendant within 60 days after 
filing. 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
11
this provision for service of a complaint, the plaintiffs ask 
the court to hold that the amended complaint was not operative 
until served and that the amended complaint did not supersede 
the original complaint with respect to Family Health Plan 
because the amended complaint was never served on Family Health 
Plan.  According to the plaintiffs, the original complaint thus 
remained valid and could support a default judgment. 
¶24 This 
argument fails 
because 
Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 
801.02(1) applies to an original summons and complaint to 
commence an action and not to an amended complaint such as the 
one in this case.  Once the action was commenced and personal 
jurisdiction was obtained on Family Health Plan, as in this 
case, the plaintiffs did not have to comply with § 801.02(1) to 
serve an amended complaint on a non-defaulting party.14  Instead, 
the plaintiffs were required to comply with the service 
requirements of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(1), as discussed 
above. 
¶25 The plaintiffs have confused Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
801.02, which governs commencement of actions, with Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 801.14(1) and (2), which provide that service of all 
other papers may be by personal or mail service or if no address 
is known by leaving them with the clerk of court.15  Thus the 
plaintiffs in the present case were required to serve the 
                     
14 See J.F. Ahern Co. v. Building Comm'n, 114 Wis. 2d at 80; 
Bell v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 198 Wis. 2d 347, 362, 541 
N.W.2d 824 (1995). 
15 See J.F. Ahern Co., 114 Wis. 2d at 80; Bell, 198 Wis. 2d 
at 362; 2 Callaghan's Wisconsin Pleading and Practice § 19.65 at 
n.1, p. 456 (4th ed. 1996) 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
12
amended complaint on Family Health Plan in accordance with Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(1) prior to filing the amended complaint.16 
¶26 Second, the plaintiffs rely on Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
801.14(1), claiming that they did not have to serve Family 
Health Plan with the amended complaint and that therefore the 
amended complaint did not supersede the original complaint.  
Section 801.14(1) provides in pertinent part that "[n]o service 
need be made on parties in default for failure to appear 
except . . . pleadings asserting new or additional claims for 
relief against them . . . ."  We agree with the plaintiffs that 
the amended complaint in the present case did not assert a new 
or additional claim for relief against Family Health Plan.  We 
conclude, however, that § 801.14(1) is not applicable in this 
case because when the amended complaint was filed, the time for 
Family Health Plan to answer the original complaint had not 
expired.  Section 801.14(1) excuses service of certain amended 
pleadings only on defendants who are in default and therefore 
has no application here because Family Health Plan was not in 
default at the time service was required.  We therefore reject 
the plaintiffs' reliance on § 801.14(1) to excuse their failure 
to serve the amended complaint on Family Health Plan. 
                     
16 The rules assume that the parties will be served before 
the paper is filed with the circuit court.  Section 801.14(4) 
further provides that "the filing of any paper required to be 
served constitutes a certification by the party or attorney 
effecting the filing that a copy of such paper has been timely 
served on all parties required to be served, except as the 
person effecting the filing may otherwise stipulate in writing." 
 In this case counsel for the plaintiffs filed affidavits of 
service on two defendants but no affidavit of service was filed 
for service on Family Health Plan. 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
13
¶27 The plaintiffs' third argument, relying on Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 802.06, is that Family Health Plan waived the issue of 
lack of service of the amended complaint because Family Health 
Plan never raised it in the circuit court, the court of appeals 
or this court.  We have previously concluded that the default 
judgment in this case is a nullity.  Because a void judgment 
cannot be validated by waiver, Neylan v. Vorwald, 124 Wis. 2d 
85, 97, 368 N.W.2d 648 (1985) (quoting Kohler Co. v. ILHR, 81 
Wis. 2d 11, 25, 259 N.W.2d 695 (1977)), this argument is without 
merit. 
¶28 Fourth, the plaintiffs argue that their position is 
supported by Ness v. Digital Dial Communications, Inc., 222 
Wis. 2d 374, 588 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1998).  This court affirmed 
the court of appeals.  Ness v. Digital Dial Communications, 
Inc., ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___ (of even date).  We 
conclude that the Ness case, both in the court of appeals and in 
this court, is consistent with the reasoning in this opinion. 
¶29 In Ness, both defendants failed to appear within their 
respective 20-day answer periods.  After the defendants were in 
default, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to correct 
the address of one of the defendants.  The amended complaint was 
not served on the defaulting defendants but was filed in circuit 
court.  After the amended complaint was filed in circuit court, 
the 
plaintiffs 
moved 
for 
default 
judgment 
against 
both 
defendants, which the circuit court granted.   
¶30 The amended complaint in Ness did not assert new or 
additional 
claims 
against 
the 
defaulting 
defendants.  
Accordingly, the amended complaint was not required to be served 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
14
on the defaulting defendants, and the original complaint was the 
operative document at the time of the defendants' default.  In 
Ness, unlike in the present case, the amended complaint was 
filed after the defendants were in default, and the Ness 
plaintiffs, unlike the plaintiffs in the present case, were not 
required by Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(1) to serve the amended 
complaint.  Thus, in Ness, the default judgment was properly 
entered upon the original complaint under the terms of Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 801.14(1) despite the filing of an amended 
complaint. 
¶31 The court of appeals in Ness discusses International 
Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 669 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. 
denied, 434 U.S. 1014 (1978), which is factually distinct from 
both Ness and the present case.  In Vesco, the defendant did not 
answer a complaint that was filed in June 1973.  An amended 
complaint asserting an additional claim against the defendant 
was filed after the defendant was in default; the amended 
complaint was not personally served on the defendant as required 
by federal Rule 4.17  Subsequently a default judgment was entered 
against the defendant on the original complaint. 
                     
17 Rule 5(a) (the federal counterpart of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
801.14(1)) provides that "no service need be made on parties in 
default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting 
new or additional claims for relief against them shall be served 
upon them in the manner provided for service of summons in Rule 
4."   Therefore the governing service rule in Vesco was Rule 4.  
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
15
¶32 On these facts, the Vesco court held that a default 
judgment was properly rendered on the original complaint despite 
the filing of an amended complaint because, without the required 
personal service of the amended complaint, the only operative 
document was the original complaint.  The Vesco court set forth 
two rationales for its holding that an amended complaint 
asserting a new or additional claim supersedes the original 
complaint only when service of the amended complaint is 
accomplished.  The Vesco court explained that a contrary holding 
(1) would leave a case in suspended animation until the amended 
complaint was properly served, with the court perhaps even 
lacking personal jurisdiction over the defendant; and (2) would 
introduce into the plaintiffs' decision to amend the complaint a 
substantial risk inconsistent with the policy underlying the 
federal procedural system of liberally allowing the amendment of 
pleadings.  Vesco, 556 F.2d at 669. 
¶33 In this case, unlike in Vesco, the defendant (Family 
Health Plan) was not in default.  In this case, unlike in Vesco, 
the amended complaint did not assert a new or additional claim. 
 In this case, unlike in Vesco, the defendant (Family Health 
Plan) did not need to be personally served under Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 801.11.  In the present case there was no danger of the 
                                                                  
Thus when an amended complaint asserts new or additional 
claims for relief against a defaulting defendant, personal 
service under Rule 4 (the federal counterpart of Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 801.11) is required.  See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 27 F. 
Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (misinterpreting Vesco as 
referring to service under Rule 5(a) instead of service under 
Rule 4 for an amended complaint asserting new or additional 
claims for relief). 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
16
court losing personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which was 
the central concern of the Vesco court.   
¶34 Unlike in Vesco, no public policy reasons justify 
excusing the plaintiffs' failure in this case to serve Family 
Health Plan with the amended complaint or support a deviation 
from the rule that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes 
the original complaint. 
¶35 We hold that the default judgment against defendant 
Family Health Plan under the circumstances of this case was a 
nullity and that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in 
denying the post-judgment motion to grant Family Health Plan 
relief from the default judgment and for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion. 
¶36 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of 
appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court to vacate the 
default judgment. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court. 
 
No. 97-1490-FT 
 
1