KSW Rail Group, LLC v. SLI, Inc., 05-25-00391-CV, March 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that service of process upon a defendant’s registered assumed name constitutes a misnomer rather than a misidentification, effectively invoking the trial court’s jurisdiction over the underlying legal entity. The court further affirmed that Rule 118 provides a robust mechanism to amend a return of service to demonstrate strict compliance with a Rule 106 substituted service order, even post-judgment, thereby curing technical defects that would otherwise render a default judgment void.
Relevance to Family Law
In complex family law litigation, particularly property disputes involving closely held business interests or shell companies, practitioners frequently encounter spouses operating through various “d/b/a” designations. This ruling confirms that a petitioner’s failure to identify the “correct” legal LLC or corporate name is not a jurisdictional fatality, provided the entity is sued under an assumed name it has held out to the public. Furthermore, in enforcement or modification suits where a party is evading service, this case provides a strategic roadmap for using Rule 118 to “fix” a process server’s clerical errors in a substituted service return, shielding a hard-fought default judgment from being set aside on restricted appeal or via a motion for new trial.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
SLI, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against “De Lucio USA” for various commercial torts and breach of contract. At the time of filing, “De Lucio USA” was an assumed name for KSW Rail Group, LLC, as evidenced by an assumed name certificate filed with the Texas Secretary of State. SLI obtained an order for substituted service under Rule 106, authorizing service by delivery to anyone over 16 at a specific business address or by posting. The process server executed a return of service stating he served an “authorized person” at the address. Months later, KSW filed an “Abandonment of Assumed Name Certificate.” SLI subsequently amended its petition to name “KSW Rail Group, LLC d/b/a De Lucio USA” and moved for a default judgment. After the trial court granted the default, KSW moved for a new trial, alleging the court lacked jurisdiction because KSW—the legal entity—was never properly served with its own citation. In response, SLI invoked Rule 118 to amend the process server’s return of service to more precisely mirror the requirements of the Rule 106 order. The trial court allowed the amendment and denied the motion for new trial.
Issues Decided
- Does service of process on a defendant’s assumed name validly invoke the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over the legal entity?
- Is a second citation required when a plaintiff amends a petition to transition from an assumed name to a legal entity name?
- May a trial court use Rule 118 to amend a return of service post-judgment to demonstrate strict compliance with a substituted service order?
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 28: Permits an entity doing business under an assumed name to be sued in that name for the purpose of enforcing a substantive right.
- Misnomer Doctrine: Applies when the correct party is involved but is merely misnamed; service under a misnomer is sufficient to confer jurisdiction if the defendant is not misled.
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106: Governs substituted service and requires strict compliance with the method of service ordered by the court.
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 118: Allows a trial court to permit an amendment of the return of service to reflect the truth of the service, provided the amendment does not prejudice the defendant.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the distinction between misidentification and misnomer. Because KSW Rail Group, LLC had voluntarily filed an assumed name certificate for “De Lucio USA,” the court found that SLI had sued the correct party under the name it used in the marketplace. Under Rule 28, this was a misnomer. The court rejected KSW’s argument that a second citation was required after SLI updated its pleadings to reflect KSW’s legal name, noting that the correct defendant had already been served.
Regarding the validity of the service itself, the court addressed the stringent “strict compliance” standard required for substituted service. While the original return of service was arguably vague, the trial court permitted an amendment under Rule 118. The amended return clarified that the process server had followed the Rule 106 order by delivering the documents to an adult at the specified address while attempting to post them. The appellate court determined that Rule 118 is intended precisely for this purpose—to allow the record to reflect the reality of service, even if the initial paperwork was technically deficient.
Holding
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the default judgment. The court held that when a party is sued under its registered assumed name, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the legal entity upon service, and subsequent amendment of the name in the pleadings does not necessitate new service of process.
The court further held that a trial court does not err in granting a Rule 118 motion to amend a return of service post-default. Such an amendment relates back to the time of the original service, and if the amended return demonstrates strict compliance with the court’s Rule 106 order, the default judgment is procedurally sound.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the importance of the Texas Secretary of State’s records. Before filing suit against a spouse’s business entity, practitioners should pull both the entity’s formation documents and any assumed name certificates. If you serve “The Smith Group” and later discover it is “Smith Holdings, LLC,” you do not need to re-serve the party—simply amend the petition to reflect the misnomer.
Additionally, this case is a vital “save” for default judgments. If a respondent attacks a default judgment based on a process server’s failure to include the “magic words” required by a Rule 106 order (e.g., failing to state the server was over 18 or failing to specify the exact manner of posting), the petitioner should immediately file a Rule 118 motion to amend the return rather than conceding the motion for new trial.
Checklists
Vetting the Entity for Service
- Search the Texas Secretary of State “SOSDirect” for both legal names and “d/b/a” filings.
- Verify the Registered Agent for the legal entity.
- Compare the address on the Assumed Name Certificate with the physical place of business.
- If suing the d/b/a, ensure the citation is addressed exactly as the name appears on the certificate.
Curing Service Defects via Rule 118
- Identify the specific requirements of the Rule 106 Substituted Service Order.
- Compare the Order’s requirements against the Process Server’s Return of Service.
- Obtain an affidavit from the process server detailing the exact steps taken (ensure these steps match the Order).
- File a Rule 118 Motion to Amend Return of Service before the hearing on a Motion for New Trial or Restricted Appeal.
- Ensure the trial court’s order granting the Rule 118 motion specifically states that the amended return is “deemed filed” as of the date of the original service.
Citation
KSW Rail Group, LLC v. SLI, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion of the court may be found here: Link to Opinion.
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in divorce proceedings where a spouse attempts to shield assets or avoid personal liability by hiding behind a web of assumed names. By leveraging Rule 28 and the misnomer doctrine, a petitioner can effectively join business entities to a divorce action even if they only have the “common” name used during the marriage.
Furthermore, the “Rule 118 Lifeline” is a game-changer for high-conflict custody cases where a parent is evading service. If you successfully obtain a default order for a modification or enforcement based on substituted service, and the opposing counsel points out a technicality in the process server’s return, KSW Rail Group provides the authority to fix the record retroactively. This prevents the “reset” of the litigation clock and preserves the existing default, forcing the opposing party to meet the difficult Craddock standard to get a new trial, rather than relying on a jurisdictional “get out of jail free” card.
~~84e75121-c3e5-4062-af33-e108b7662aa6~~
Share this content: