May Dept. Stores Co. v. Wilansky
900 F. Supp. 1154, 1995 WL 570584 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Service of process is invalid when a plaintiff induces a defendant into the jurisdiction for the purpose of settlement talks or other discussions without either clearly warning the defendant beforehand that they may be served or giving the defendant an opportunity to leave the jurisdiction before service is effectuated.
Facts:
- Heywood L. Wilansky was a long-term executive for The May Department Stores Company ('May'), which has its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.
- In 1992, while in St. Louis, Wilansky signed an amendment to his employment agreement that extended its term to April 30, 1997.
- As part of his executive duties, Wilansky regularly traveled to St. Louis for meetings at May's corporate headquarters.
- On August 18, 1995, Wilansky informed May that he was resigning to accept a position as President and CEO of a competitor, The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. ('Bon-Ton').
- A May executive, Richard Battram, asked Wilansky to come to St. Louis to discuss his resignation.
- The following day, May sent a company airplane to bring Wilansky from Texas to St. Louis for the meeting.
- While Wilansky was en route, May's attorneys filed a complaint against him and Bon-Ton.
- During the meeting in St. Louis, after it became clear Wilansky would not reconsider his resignation, May's attorneys entered the room and served him with the summons and complaint.
Procedural Posture:
- The May Department Stores Company filed a two-count complaint against Heywood L. Wilansky and The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Count I alleged breach of contract against Wilansky, and Count II alleged tortious interference with a contract against Bon-Ton.
- On the same day the Missouri suit was filed, Wilansky and Bon-Ton filed a declaratory judgment action against May in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- In the Missouri action, Defendant Wilansky filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficiency of service of process.
- Defendant Bon-Ton filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer the case to Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is service of process valid when a plaintiff invites a defendant into the jurisdiction for discussions regarding their dispute, and then serves the defendant with a pre-filed complaint during those discussions without prior warning?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, District Judge
No, the service of process is not valid. The court adopted a bright-line rule that service of process should be quashed when a defendant is induced to enter a jurisdiction for discussions at the plaintiff's instigation, unless the plaintiff has either clearly informed the defendant that service of process might occur, or has given the defendant an opportunity to leave the jurisdiction before service is made. The court found that May initiated the meeting in St. Louis, had already filed its complaint, and had attorneys ready to serve Wilansky when it became clear the discussion was fruitless. Because May failed to warn Wilansky or give him a chance to depart before service, the service was obtained through improper trickery and must be quashed. This rule promotes good faith settlement negotiations and prevents the court from having to determine the subjective intent of the parties.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear, protective rule regarding service of process during settlement talks, often called the 'fraudulent inducement' or 'trickery' doctrine. By adopting a bright-line test, the court obviates the need for difficult factual inquiries into whether a plaintiff's invitation was a genuine attempt to negotiate or a pretext to serve process. This precedent strengthens protections for out-of-state defendants, encouraging them to participate in settlement discussions without fear of being trapped in a foreign jurisdiction. For legal practitioners, it serves as a stark warning: luring an opponent into the jurisdiction for talks and then serving them is impermissible without explicit prior warning.
