Bowman and Brooke Logo

VERDICTS & CASE STUDIES

In early 2018, Law360 named Bowman and Brooke a “2017 Product Liability Group of the Year,” marking the eighth time the firm has received this distinction in the past nine years.

Claims Dropped in Shamrock Development v. Smith

Minneapolis, MN
Aug 07, 2008

Shamrock Development v. Smith

CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE.
Commericial Litigation

Shamrock Development brought claims seeking to renew a judgment against Randall Smith that exceeded $1.2 million. Rather than serving the complaint on Smith personally, Shamrock served the complaint via publication in a Minnesota newspaper. Because Smith had never lived in, or visited, Minnesota, a motion to dismiss was brought for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the statute of limitations had run for renewing the judgment, if service of process was insufficient (i.e., no personal jurisdiction existed), then Shamrock would not be able to renew its judgment even if the case was re-filed and the complaint properly served. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. At the Minnesota Supreme Court, however, Mr. Smith was vindicated. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court had not made the necessary factual findings as to whether Smith was actually a resident individual domiciliary who left the state with the intent to defraud creditors or avoid service of process and, therefore, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. Prior to the trial court taking further action, the Shamrock Development dropped its claims against Smith as it understood no facts existed that could support jurisdiction against him in Minnesota.

Randall Smith was represented by Bowman and Brooke partners Timothy Mattson and C.J. Schoenwetter.

Trial Team

Related Practices