Opinion
No. CV98 035 65 18 S
February 4, 1999 CT Page 1270
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 102)
The plaintiff, Raymond Bursey, filed a two-count complaint against the defendant, Black Rock Enterprises, L.L.C. The defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the ground of improper service. Specifically, the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to serve his suit upon the defendant's statutory agent for service pursuant to General Statutes § 34-105.
General Statutes § 34-105 (a), as amended by Public Acts 1998, No. 98-137 § 30, provides: "Any process, notice or demand in connection with any action or proceeding required or permitted by law to be served upon a limited liability company which is subject to the provisions of section 34-104, may be served upon the limited liability company's statutory agent for service by any proper officer or other person lawfully empowered to make service by leaving a true and attested copy of the process, notice or demand with such agent or, in the case of an agent who is a natural person, by leaving it at such agent's usual place of abode in this state.
General Statutes § 34-105(d) provides: "Nothing contained in this section shall limit or affect the right to serve any process, notice or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon a limited liability company in any other manner permitted by law."
"The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert . . . insufficiency of service of process." Practice Book § 10-31(a)(5). "Where a particular method of serving process is pointed out by statute, that method must be followed . . . Unless service of process is made as the statute prescribes, the court to which it is returnable does not acquire jurisdiction. (Citations omitted.) Board of Education v. Local 1282, 31 Conn. App. 629, 632, 535 A.2d 396, cert. granted, 227 Conn. 909, 632 A.2d 688 (1993).
The defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to serve its appointed agent for service of process pursuant to § 34-105 (a), and, therefore the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant. The defendant contends that § 34-105(a) is mandatory and prescribes the only method whereby service may be made on a limited liability company. The plaintiff argues that the use of the word "may" in § 34-105(a) means service on the statutory agent is discretionary rather than mandatory. The plaintiff also argues that § 34-105(d) allows any other type of lawful service on a limited liability company, and, therefore service upon a member of the defendant who is not the statutory agent still fulfills the requirement of the service statutes, which is to insure that defendants have notice of pending actions.
In Board of Education v. Local 1282, supra, 31 Conn. App. 633, the court held that the use of the word "may" in § 52-57 (e) was trumped by the fact that specific officers of a voluntary association were named as agents for service. The court determined that the listing of specific officers prescribed a mandatory method of service. Id. The defendant seeks to have this court apply the same interpretation to § 34-105(a). Such an interpretation, however, would nullify § 34-105(d), which allows for alternative methods of service. "We presume . . . that the legislature had a purpose for each sentence, clause or phrase in a legislative enactment, and that it did not intend to enact meaningless provisions . . . [C]are must be taken to effectuate all provisions of [a] statute." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Packer v. Board of Education, 246 Conn. 89, 111 (1998).
General Statutes § 52-57(e) provides in pertinent part: "In actions against a voluntary association, service of process may be made upon the presiding officer, secretary or treasurer."
In order to give meaning to both § 34-105(a) and § 34-105(d), the court finds that § 34-105(a) offers one possible manner in which service may be made upon a limited liability company. See Leib v. Avon Financial Services, Ltd., Superior Court judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 27989 (November 26, 1997) ( Mottolese, J.) (section 34-105 permits but does not require that service be made upon the statutory agent for service). As provided in § 34-105(d), nothing in § 34-105 limits or affects the right to serve process upon a limited liability company in any other manner permitted by law.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to serve the defendant's statutory agent pursuant to § 34-105 (a) is denied.
The defendant does not argue that even if the service made here was allowed under § 34-105(d), it was improper in some other respect.
_________________ SKOLNICK, J.