Opinion ID: 2428056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Quash Service

Text: PDGSA did not file a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. It rather moved to dismiss or to quash service, alleging that it is not subject to suit in Missouri and was not properly served with process. We conclude that the trial court properly quashed service. Although Ralston was served through its statutory registered agent, the plaintiff undertook to serve PDGSA by delivering the summons and a copy of the petition to Dennis Fales, who is identified only as an employee of Ralston at its St. Louis headquarters. The sheriff's return states that service on PDGSA was made: by delivering a copy of the writ and petition furnished by the clerk to Dennis Fales, who accepted service thereof for and on behalf of Purina de Guatemala. 835 S. 8th. The street address given is that of Ralston's headquarters in St. Louis. Under Rule 54.13(a)(3) service may be made: Upon a domestic or foreign corporation or upon a partnership or other unincorporated association, by delivering a copy of the summons and petition to an officer, partner, or managing or general agent, or by leaving the copies at any business office of the defendant with the person having charge thereof or by delivering copies to its registered agent or to any other agent authorized by appointment or required by law to receive service of process. The return does not even demonstrate effective service on Ralston. There is no showing that Fales was an officer or general or managing agent either of Ralston or of PDGSA, that he was in charge of Ralston's office, or that he was authorized to accept service for either corporation. Barring a showing of office or authority, his undertaking to accept service, as stated in the return, does not make the service effective. Agency cannot be established by the unsupported declarations of the agent. [7] The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that PDGSA is properly in court. The plaintiff cites Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988), to demonstrate that service on a parent corporation may meet due process requirements for jurisdiction over a subsidiary. Satisfying minimum standards of due process, however, does not obviate the necessity of serving process in the manner prescribed in our statutes and rules. In Volkswagenwerk , the state law authorized service on a foreign corporation by serving its domestic subsidiary. The decision offers no refuge to Acapolon because it did not effect service in compliance with state law. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed as to both defendants. All concur.