Alice Sarkar v. Knights Inn

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALICE SARKAR, UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, 9:42 AM v No. 369831 Saginaw Circuit Court KNIGHTS INN, also known as D&D HOTEL LC No. 23-000338-NO INVESTMENTS, INC., doing business as APPLE TREE INN, Defendant-Appellee. Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this personal-injury case, plaintiff, Alice Sarkar, obtained a default against defendant, Knights Inn, also known as D&D Hotel Investments, Inc., doing business as Apple Tree Inn. The trial court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to set aside the default and dismissed this case without prejudice for nonservice. Plaintiff now appeals that decision by right. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On February 16, 2020, plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice while she was on premises then owned and operated by defendant. Exactly three years later, on February 16, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, alleging that defendant’s negligent maintenance of the premises caused her fall and ensuing injuries. Plaintiff thereafter sent a summons, which was set to expire on May 18, 2023, and a copy of the complaint via registered mail to the address for the Apple Tree Inn that was on file with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). The mail was restricted to Dan Patel, who was listed as defendant’s registered agent. Patel was also the sole officer and shareholder of defendant. The information on file with LARA also made clear—and the parties do not dispute—that defendant had dissolved on April 7, 2022, nearly one year before plaintiff mailed the summons and complaint. Plaintiff subsequently received a return receipt indicating that an individual named Alyssa Garcia signed for and received the summons and complaint at the Apple Tree Inn on April 26, 2023. On August 22, 2023, with defendant having filed no response or appearance in the case, -1- plaintiff requested that the court clerk enter a default against defendant based on the return receipt signed by Garcia. The court clerk entered the default three days later on August 25, 2023. After obtaining the default, plaintiff’s counsel sent a “courtesy copy” of the complaint and default to the company that served as defendant’s insurer at the time of the alleged incident, who then hired counsel to defend this action. On October 16, 2023, defendant filed a motion to set aside the default pursuant to MCR 2.603(D) for lack of service of process. Defendant argued that Garcia was not authorized to accept service of process on defendant’s behalf because she was not an individual designated under the court rules to do so and she otherwise had no relationship to defendant as the Apple Tree Inn had been operated by a new owner since before defendant’s dissolution in April 2022. Defendant further argued that it had no actual notice of the pending lawsuit, noting that Patel had no notice, having moved back to India shortly after defendant’s dissolution, and that defendant had remained completely unaware of the lawsuit until plaintiff’s counsel provided a courtesy copy of the complaint and default to defendant’s insurer at the time of the alleged incident. In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff argued that she provided defendant service of process in compliance with the court rules by sending the summons and complaint to the business address for defendant on file with LARA and restricting delivery of the mail to defendant’s registered agent, Patel. Plaintiff asserted that service on Garcia was adequate to constitute proper service on defendant because delivery of the registered mail was restricted to Patel as the addressee or to his authorized agent, so “[b]y signing the registered mail receipt,” Garcia “represented herself to be an authorized agent of [defendant] and/or Mr. Patel.” Plaintiff also argued that defendant failed to “demonstrate good cause and a meritorious defense” in support of its motion to set aside the default as it was required to do under the court rules. Plaintiff further argued that, even if service was improper, the case should not be dismissed because defendant received actual notice when plaintiff contacted defendant’s insurer in April 2021, prior to defendant’s dissolution, abo