Opinion ID: 1161850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction over the partnership and co-partners

Text: Turning to the question of jurisdiction over Ms. Gibson's co-partners and the partnership, we begin our analysis with Rule 4(d)(3), W.R.C.P., which provides that service of process shall be made [u]pon a partnership, or other unincorporated association, by delivery of copies to one or more of the partners or associates, or a managing or general agent thereof, or by leaving same at the usual place of business of such defendant with any employee then in charge thereof. For purposes of service, the rule treats a partnership as an entity which may be summoned to appear by service upon a single partner. In the caption of appellant's complaint, the four individual appellees are named as defendants individually and doing business as NUTRI-WEST OF CALIFORNIA. Although Nutri-West of California is not specifically identified as a partnership, it is identified as an entity. Ms. Gibson, its managing partner, was personally served with a copy of the complaint. In our view, these undisputed facts demonstrate adequate service in accordance with Rule 4(d)(3). In contrast, effective service upon Ms. Gibson's co-partners as individuals was not achieved. The summonses for the individual co-partners were served upon Ms. Gibson as their agent and partner. Nothing in the record suggests that the co-partners appointed Ms. Gibson as their agent for service of process, and nothing in Rule 4 validates this manner of service upon an individual. Accordingly, the district court did not acquire jurisdiction over the partners of Nutri-West of California in their individual capacities. Although service upon the partnership was achieved in accordance with Rule 4, we must still determine whether due process considerations precluded the court from obtaining personal jurisdiction over it. The general rule appears to be that personal service upon one partner who is present in the forum state confers jurisdiction over the partnership, particularly when, as in this case, the partner's presence in the jurisdiction is related to partnership activity. See Long v. Baldt, 464 F. Supp. 269, 275, n. 8 (D.S.C. 1979); R. Casad, Civil Jurisdiction ¶ 3.03, n. 366 (1986 Supp.); 2 Cavitch, Business Organizations, § 25.02[1] (1984); E. Scoles and P. Hay, Conflict of Laws, § 9.1 (1984). We conclude that the district court acquired personal jurisdiction over Nutri-West of California by personal service upon Ms. Gibson in Wyoming.