The mere existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship is insufficient to establish the close ties necessary for a subsidiary to be deemed a parent's agent for the service of process. (See, e.g., Geick [ v. American Honda Motor Co.], 117 F.R.D. 123 [C.D.Ill. 1987]). On the other hand, it is not necessary that a parent's control of a subsidiary be so pervasive as to make the two corporations essentially one, or to make the subsidiary an alter ego or mere department of the parent.

RD asserts it is doubtful one sister corporation could ever control the affairs of another sister corporation, and therefore, service of process on a sister corporation as agent of another sister corporation can never be proper as a matter of law. RD notes in Geick v. American Honda Motor Co. (C.D. Ill. 1987), 117 F.R.D. 123, the court held even American Honda and Honda are not so closely related that service of process on American Honda constitutes effective service on Honda. RD further observes CT returned to Wissmiller's attorney and to the trial court the process directed to RD which was served upon CT in its capacity of registered agent for American Honda.

Because plaintiff has attempted to serve process on GIE under the Illinois service of process rules, as allowed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) and (h), the court must determine whether plaintiff has complied with Illinois law.Akari Imeji Co. v. Qume Corp., 748 F. Supp. 588, 590 (N.D.Ill. 1990); Geick v. American Honda Motor Co., 117 F.R.D. 123, 125 (C.D.Ill. 1987). Under 735 ILCS § 5/2-204, "[a] private corporation may be served (1) by leaving a copy of the process with its registered agent or any officer or agent of the corporation found anywhere in the State; or (2) in any other manner now or hereafter permitted by law."

, the Court must agree that plaintiffs' service upon Honda, Ltd., through American Honda appears defective. SeeGeick v. American Honda Motor Company, Ltd., and Honda Motor Company, Ltd, 117 F.R.D. 123 (C.D.Ill.1987); Stoehr v. American Honda Motor Company, Ltd., and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., 429 F.Supp. 763 (D.Neb.1977); Fields v. American Honda Motor Company, Ltd. and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., No. 86-L-103 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Jan. 6, 1988).

Although in Cannon service of process was made on the subsidiary as agent for the parent, rather than on the parent as in the present case, this factual distinction does not affect the Supreme Court's reasoning concerning when one corporation becomes the other corporation's agent for severance. See Akari Imeji Co. v. Qume Corp., 748 F. Supp. 588, 591 (N.D.Ill. 1990) (holding "[t]here is no precise test for defining how much control a foreign parent corporation must wield over its domestic subsidiary before the subsidiary will be deemed its agent for the purposes of service"); Geick v. American Honda Motor Co., 117 F.R.D. 123 (C.D.Ill. 1987) (record of control insufficient for finding the existence of any more than a parent-subsidiary relationship); Schlunk v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengasellschaft, 145 Ill. App.3d 594, 105 Ill.Dec. 39, 503 N.E.2d 1045 (1986), aff'd 486 U.S. 694, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988) (identified several factors to consider when deciding if a parent-subsidiary relationship is close enough to allow service of process on a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation); Stoehr v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 429 F. Supp. 763, 766 (D.Neb. 1977) ("plaintiff has not demonstrated an underlying unity between . . . [the corporations], sufficient to support this Court piercing . . . [the] corporate veil and reaching" the parent through service of process on the subsidiary). III