Utah Supreme Court hears arguments over Rule 4 definition of “managing agent” and service of process

Rodney Parker, attorney for the appellant, told the Utah Supreme Court that the central question in the case is not merely definitional but procedural: whether a change in who qualifies as a 'managing or general agent' under Rule 4 should be made through formal amendment rather than by judicial decision. "To redefine that process now by judicial fiat ... should require an extraordinary reason," Parker said, arguing the rulemaking process provides notice, predictability and public input.

Ron Griffin, counsel for the respondent, asked the court to affirm the Court of Appeals. He urged that the Direct Mail line of cases supports treating a "managing agent" as an employee "so integrated in the corporation that he or she will know what to do with the papers," and said that titles alone are not controlling. Griffin argued that actual notice and the reasonableness standard from later cases (discussed in argument as Malane/Mullane-era law) are relevant factors in the fairness analysis for service.

Why it matters: the…