The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Brandon L. McMahan did not properly serve Grasshopper Trans, Inc. in his personal injury lawsuit, leading to the voiding of a default judgment. This decision affects how service of process is handled in Arizona, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures correctly.
The case, McMahan v. Grasshopper, No. CV-25-0287-PR, was filed on July 30, 2026, and addressed the legal implications of improper service in personal injury claims. The ruling is significant for individuals and businesses involved in similar legal disputes, as it clarifies the requirements for serving legal documents.
Brandon L. McMahan, the petitioner, was injured in February 2023 when a tractor trailer owned by Grasshopper collided with safety barricades at a construction site. Following the incident, McMahan filed a lawsuit against Grasshopper, an Illinois corporation, seeking damages for the alleged negligence of the driver.
The dispute began when McMahan attempted to serve Grasshopper with the summons and complaint. On March 6, 2024, he delivered the documents to Ljubisa Srejovic, Grasshopper's statutory agent, but left them with Srejovic's assistant, Sladana Bojic, who was not authorized to accept service. McMahan later applied for an entry of default after Grasshopper failed to respond.
On April 29, 2024, the court entered a default against Grasshopper. However, the corporation did not respond until June 11, 2024, when it filed an answer denying ownership of the tractor trailer involved in the accident. Grasshopper also raised the issue of insufficient service of process as a defense.
Grasshopper subsequently filed motions to set aside the entry of default, arguing that the service was invalid. The superior court initially granted Grasshopper's motion, concluding that the entry of default was void due to improper service. However, the court of appeals reversed this decision, stating that Grasshopper had waived its right to challenge the service by acknowledging it had been served.
The Arizona Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, reviewed the case to determine whether Grasshopper had waived its right to contest the default. In its ruling, the court emphasized that McMahan had not properly served Grasshopper, as Bojic lacked the authority to accept service. The court stated, "Because Bojic lacked either actual or apparent authority to accept service, delivering the summons and complaint to her did not constitute service on Grasshopper."
The court further explained that since the superior court did not have personal jurisdiction over Grasshopper at the time the default became effective, the entry of default was void from the outset. The court noted, "A void judgment or order has no legal effect, and a court must vacate it when an affected party seeks relief."
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving service of process in Arizona. It reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to follow proper procedures when serving defendants, as failure to do so can result in the dismissal of their claims. The decision also clarifies that a defendant's later actions cannot retroactively validate a void entry of default.
Moving forward, this ruling will impact how personal injury claims and other civil lawsuits are handled in Arizona. It serves as a reminder to all parties involved in legal disputes to ensure that they adhere to the rules governing service of process to avoid complications and delays in their cases.
As for the next steps, it remains to be seen whether McMahan will appeal the Arizona Supreme Court's decision. There are currently no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.