This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Dennis A. Thom,
Scott County, et al.,
Scott County District Court
File No. 70-CV-05-19277
Dennis A. Thom,
James R. Andreen, Erstad & Reimer, P.A.,
Appellant challenges the dismissal of his case for lack of proper service. Because appellant did not properly serve respondents, we affirm.
Appellant Dennis A. Thom applied for the position of Employee
Relations Director for
served a copy of the Summons and
Complaint and Acknowledgment to the work/business places of
Huss and Unmacht were not personally served but agree that they had actual notice of the action. Neither the county-board chair nor the county auditor has ever been provided with the summons and complaint. The district court dismissed the action because Thom did not properly serve respondents. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
“If service of process is invalid, the district court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the case, and it is properly dismissed.” Leek v.
Am. Express Prop. Cas., 591 N.W.2d 507, 509 (
Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(a) requires a plaintiff who is bringing
an action against an individual to deliver a copy of the summons and complaint
“to the individual personally or by leaving a copy at the individual’s usual
place of abode . . . .” “Rule 4 . . .
cannot be satisfied by service on [a] defendant’s place of work or
business.” Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 584 (
Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(e)(1) requires a plaintiff who is
bringing an action against a county to deliver a copy of the summons and
complaint “[t]o the chair of the county board or to the county auditor of a
defendant county.” Here, the affidavit
of service is completely devoid of any reference to the chair of the county
board or the Scott County Auditor.
Because neither the chair of the county board nor the Scott County
Auditor was served, service of process was deficient, and the district court
properly dismissed Thom’s claims against
 Moe’s affidavit of service merely states that he “served” a copy of the documents and does not indicate whether he personally, hand-delivered the documents or mailed them to the address provided. The affidavits of Unmacht and Huss state that neither was personally served.