Short answer. Serving any one of the associated defendants, or the person in charge of the office or place of business used under that name, binds all of them — except anyone whose connection to the entity was already severed, on due notice, before the case was filed.
What the law says
When persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been severed before the action was filed.
Rule 14, Section 7 — Service upon entity without juridical personality. Read the full provision →
Suing an entity without juridical personality
Some groups of people operate together, informally or otherwise, under a common name without ever having formed a corporation, partnership, or other entity formally recognized in law as a separate legal person. This rule specifically addresses how to serve summons when such a loosely organized group is sued collectively under the name by which it is generally or commonly known to the public.
One service point, binding on all
Rather than requiring separate service on every single individual associated with the entity, which could be impractical or even impossible in many cases, the rule allows service to be effected upon all the defendants collectively by serving just one of them, or by serving the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in that entity's name. That single act of service is treated as legally sufficient to bind the entire group as defendants.
The severed-connection exception
This considerable convenience has one important limit built in. Service made this way will not individually bind any person whose connection with the entity was, upon due notice given beforehand, already severed before the action was filed in court. In other words, someone who had genuinely and demonstrably left the group before the lawsuit began is not automatically swept into the case just because service happened to reach someone else who remained associated with the entity.
Why this balance makes sense
Requiring individual service on every single member of a loosely associated group could make lawsuits against such informal entities practically unworkable in many real situations, while binding absolutely everyone regardless of their actual continuing connection would be genuinely unfair to those who had already and verifiably left. The rule's single-service, severed-connection-exception structure tries to hold both of these competing concerns together in a workable balance.
Related provisions
- Rule 14, Section 7 — Service upon entity without juridical personality
- Rule 14, Section 6 — Substituted service
- Rule 14, Section 8 — Service upon prisoners