Prior cases have held that persons in the positions of occupational therapist, administrative assistant, staff counselor or office receptionist lack the power to exercise independent judgment and discretion on behalf of the corporation. Id. at 314 ; Duncan Elec., 325 N.W.2d at 812 ; Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn.App. 1992) review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992);Winkel v. Eden Rehab. Treatment Facility, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 135, 140 (Minn.App. 1988).

While service-of-process rules should be construed liberally, service in an unauthorized manner is ineffective. See Derrick v. Drolson Co., 244 Minn. 144, 155, 69 N.W.2d 124, 131 (1955) (stating rule 4.03(c) should be liberally construed); Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn.App. 1992) (noting unauthorized service is ineffective), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).

See BBSerCo, Inc. v. Metrix Co., 324 F.3d 955, 960 n.3 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Wood v. Mid-Valley Inc., 942 F.2d 425, 426 (7th Cir.1991)) ("The operative rule is that when neither party raises a conflict of law issue in a diversity case, the federal court simply applies the law of the state in which the federal court sits."); In re St. Jude Med., Inc., 425 F.3d 1116, 1120 (8th Cir. 2005) ("There is, of course, no constitutional injury to out-of-state plaintiffs in applying Minnesota law unless Minnesota law is in conflict with the other states' laws. Therefore, we must first decide whether any conflicts actually exist."); Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992) ("Where a conflict of law question has not been raised, Minnesota law will govern.").

Nevertheless, a number of cases in this and other jurisdictions have held that where the parties have failed to supply or address applicable foreign law, local law will be applied. See Touche Ross Ltd. v. Filipek, 7 Haw. App. 473, 479, 778 P.2d 721, 726 (1989); Block v. Lea, 5 Haw. App. 266, 268 n. 4, 688 P.2d 724, 727-28 n. 4, cert. denied, 67 Haw. 685, 744 P.2d 781 (1984); Hall v. American Airlines, Inc., 1 Haw. App. 258, 617 P.2d 1230 (1980); see also Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201, 205-06 (1st Cir. 1988); Nikimiha Sec. Ltd., v. Trend Group, Ltd., 646 F. Supp. 1211, 1227 (E.D.Pa. 1986); Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 136 comment (h); Eugene F. Scoles Peter Hay, Conflict of Laws §§ 12.18-12.19 (1992) (collecting cases); contra, Walton v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 233 F.2d 541 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 872, 77 S.Ct. 97, 1 L.Ed.2d 77 (1956) (dismissing the case where foreign law was not proved). In the present matter, we need not directly address whether it is generally appropriate for courts in this jurisdiction to ascertain foreign law ex officio because reliable sources of Philippine law are not available.

In contrast, persons in the positions of administrative assistant, staff counselor at a halfway house, and office receptionist all have been found to lack the power to exercise independent judgment and discretion on behalf of the corporation. See Duncan Elec., 325 N.W.2d at 812; Winkel v. Eden Rehabilitation Treatment Facility, 433 N.W.2d 135, 140 (Minn.App. 1988); Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn.App. 1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn., June 10, 1992). In the instant case, plaintiff offers no compelling evidence that Priebe's position as occupational therapist allowed him to exercise discretion or make independent judgments on behalf of WRC. Plaintiff's only evidence is the 1992 letter signed by Priebe, listing his position as executive director and occupational therapist at WRC, and the fact that Priebe identified himself as executive director to the process server.

Duncan Elec. Co., Inc. v. Trans Data, Inc., 325 N.W.2d 811, 812 (Minn. 1982) (concluding that an administrative assistant was not a managing agent); see also Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn.App. 1992) (concluding that a receptionist was not a managing agent), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992); Winkel v. Eden Rehab. Treatment Facility, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 135, 140 (Minn.App. 1988) (concluding that a staff counselor was not a managing agent).

However, in the absence of a contractual choice of law provision, "[w]here a conflict of law question has not been raised, Minnesota law will govern." Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).

"Where a conflict of law question has not been raised, Minnesota law will govern." Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).

1984). When reviewing an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficiency of process, the plaintiff's allegations are accepted as true. Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).

Thus, appellants failed to strictly comply with the notice requirement. See Minn.Stat. § 302A.901 (1990) (service on a corporation must be provided to a registered agent of the corporation, an officer, or the secretary of state); Miller v. A.N. Webber, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Minn.App. 1992) (service on a corporation is inadequate where employee does not possess powers similar in character and importance to those possessed by the corporation's officers), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).