PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, "The Disciples of Christ Foundation, a corporations sole, by and through Overseer Michael-Kevin: Rickett" appeals the dismissal, without prejudice, of its petition. This case is before the court on Defendants' motion for summary disposition and request for sanctions under rule 33 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 33.
Although Plaintiff's docketing statement stated that it challenged the district court's ruling denying the claim of impecuniosity, neither the record nor Plaintiff's response is adequate to allow review of the claim.
Defendants appeared specially and moved to quash the alleged service of process and to dismiss the petition. In a Ruling and Order dated January 12, 2006, the district court concluded that there had been no service of process on any named defendant; therefore, the court ruled that "[s]ervice under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure must be accomplished before subsequent pleadings, such as requests for discovery or for summary judgment, may be made." The court also ruled that because the Plaintiff was allegedly a corporation, it could not be represented by a non-lawyer. Finally, the court allowed Plaintiff twenty calendar days in which to file a proper amended complaint to state its claims.
Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the petition had been served on any named Defendant in accordance with rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Utah R. Civ. P. 4. Plaintiff persisted in claiming that service on the non-party attorney who served as trustee under a trust deed accomplished service on the named defendants. There is no demonstration that the attorney was authorized to accept process. Rather than filing an amended complaint clarifying its claims, Plaintiff simply renewed its motion for summary judgment and sought reconsideration or amendment of the July 12, 2006 order.
In a Ruling and Order dated February 9, 2006, the district court ruled that (1) the complaint was not properly served under rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) Plaintiff improperly attempted to shorten the time for responses to discovery before service, and (3) the pleadings do not comply with rule 8 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires pleadings to contain a short and plain statement of the claim for relief with each averment to be simple, concise, and direct.See Utah R. Civ. P. 8(a). Accordingly, the district court dismissed the petition, without prejudice.
Although Plaintiff was given notice and an opportunity to serve the petition in a manner required by rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, it failed to do so. There is no demonstration that any named defendant was served, or waived service, and the court properly ruled that the petition was not served. Even assuming that the petition was sufficient to commence a civil action under rule 3(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over any named party and could not grant relief. See Utah R. Civ. P. 4 (requiring service of a summons and a copy of the complaint in any action that is commenced by filing a complaint). In addition, although the district court required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff instead renewed its summary judgment motion. The petition apparently complains that the trustee at a non-judicial foreclosure refused to accept a promissory note in satisfaction of the original obligation, which Plaintiff alleges made the Defendants liable for damages. The petition did not state a cognizable legal theory. Under the circumstances, the court did not err in dismissing the case, without prejudice. Based upon our disposition, it is unnecessary to address issues regarding representation of an alleged corporation sole.
We affirm the district court's dismissal of the petition, and we deny the motion seeking sanctions, without prejudice.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, We concur.