F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 23 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
WANDA JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-3099
CITY OF TOPEKA and
DOUGLAS S. REINERT,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1132-JTR)
Submitted on the briefs:
Alan G. Warner, Warner, Bixler & Associates, L.L.C., Topeka, Kansas, for
Appellant.
Craig C. Blumreich, Gehrt & Roberts, Chartered, Topeka, Kansas, for Appellees.
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
HENRY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the magistrate judge 1 dismissing her
diversity tort suit on the interrelated grounds that personal jurisdiction over
defendants was absent for lack of service and that any attempt to cure the
deficiency would be untimely under the controlling statute of limitations. See
generally Jenkins v. City of Topeka, 958 F. Supp. 556 (D. Kan. 1997). We review
the trial court’s determination of these matters de novo. See, e.g., FDIC v.
Oaklawn Apartments, 959 F.2d 170, 173 (10th Cir. 1992) (legal rulings on
personal jurisdiction and sufficiency/timeliness of service reviewed de novo);
Edwards v. International Union, United Plant Workers of Am., 46 F.3d 1047,
1050 (10th Cir. 1995) (legal issues regarding application of time-bar reviewed de
novo). For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
I
Plaintiff filed this personal-injury action on April 12, 1996, long before the
two-year statute of limitations was due to expire on September 8, 1996. See Kan.
Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4). See generally Cook v. G.D. Searle & Co., 759 F.2d
800, 802 (10th Cir. 1985) (following Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99
(1945), to hold state statute of limitations governs in diversity suit). However,
1
The parties consented to disposition of the action by the magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Accordingly, our appellate jurisdiction arises
under § 636(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-2-
under Kansas law regarding the commencement of civil actions, plaintiff could
rely on the filing date only if she served defendants within ninety days of filing;
service thereafter would shift the commencement date ahead to the date of
service. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-203(a). See generally Walker v. Armco Steel
Co., 446 U.S. 740, 751 (1980) (under York, state service rule, as integral part of
limitations scheme, governs commencement for tolling purposes; under Hanna v.
Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 “governs the date from which
various timing requirements of the Federal Rules begins, but does not affect state
statutes of limitations.”). In short, if plaintiff did not effect service by September
8, 1996, her action would be subject to dismissal as time-barred.
Plaintiff attempted to satisfy the service requirement by sending defendants
a request for waiver of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) shortly after filing
her complaint. Defendants refused to sign and return the waiver of service.
However, on May 9, 1996, their attorney filed with the court a formal “ENTRY
OF APPEARANCE” under the caption of the case, representing that he “enters
his appearance herein as counsel of record on behalf of the defendants in the
above captioned action.” Appendix of Appellant at 7.
Several weeks later, defendants filed an answer summarily asserting a
number of affirmative defenses, including insufficiency of service and lack of
personal jurisdiction. Thereafter, the case proceeded without incident through
-3-
early discovery and scheduling. Then, on December 20, 1996, defendants moved
to dismiss, contending they had not been served and could no longer be brought
within the court’s jurisdiction because the applicable statute of limitations had
expired. The magistrate judge agreed and granted the motion.
II
It is important, for understanding the applicability and operation of the
controlling law in this diversity action, to distinguish between two easily confused
procedural concepts: effectuation of sufficient service and waiver of insufficient
service. Effectuation of service is a precondition to suit, while waiver of
insufficient service is the forfeiture of defense to that service.
The parties do not dispute that Kansas law governs the question of
effectuation of service raised in this case. See, e.g., Walker, 446 U.S. at 751-53;
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-203(c), “[t]he filing of
an entry of appearance shall have the same effect as service.” See also
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964, 978 (Kan. 1994). Thus, plaintiff argues
that defendants’ formal entry of appearance filed May 9, 1996, satisfied the
service requirement, bringing them within the personal jurisdiction of the district
court prior to any objection to service and long before the statute of limitations
expired. See Dotson v. State Highway Comm’n, 426 P.2d 138, 143 (Kan. 1967)
(“[Defendant’s] execution and filing of written entry of appearance was
-4-
equivalent to service of process (K.S.A. 60-203), and [defendant] thereby
submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction.”).
The magistrate judge denied § 60-203(c) its “literal reading” because he
was concerned that even counsel who, mindful of § 60-203(c), does not file a
separate entry of appearance and carefully asserts insufficient service as a defense
by answer or pre-pleading motion, would still waive the defense through his
“appearance” in the very act of asserting/preserving it. This concern is
unwarranted. As the magistrate judge himself noted, Kansas law (echoing
established federal waiver principles under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12) now clearly holds
that the defense of insufficient service may be asserted, and thereby preserved, in
a responsive pleading or motion. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-212(b), (h); City of
Hutchinson ex rel. Human Relations Comm’n v. Hutchinson, Kan. Office of State
Employment Serv., 517 P.2d 117, 122-23 (Kan. 1973) (applying § 60-212 to reject
waiver-by-responsive-pleading posited here).
In contrast, because filing an entry of appearance effects service under
§ 60-203(c), once counsel formally took such action on defendants’ behalf prior
to any responsive pleading, defendants could not thereafter contest the sufficiency
of service by answer or motion--but this had nothing to do with defense
preservation/waiver under Rule 12. A defense cannot be preserved or waived
unless it exists, and, with service already accomplished under § 60-203(c), there
-5-
was no insufficient-service defense to “preserve” when defendants responded to
the complaint.
Accordingly, we hold that service of process was properly effected pursuant
to § 60-203(c) on May 9, 1996, when counsel entered his appearance on
defendants’ behalf. As this resulted in commencement of the action well within
the statute of limitations, dismissal for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge
was erroneous. This holding obviates consideration of plaintiff’s alternative
contention that the magistrate judge erred in failing to afford her the chance to
cure service retroactively under § 60-203(b).
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
-6-