Bacou-Dalloz Safety, Inc. v. Hall, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01095-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-07-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Service of process - Good cause - M.R.C.P. 4(h) Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., DIAZ, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): RANDOLPH, J. Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-20-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: 2002-290-CV9 |
|
| Note: | Nature of the Case: Silica | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BACOU-DALLOZ SAFETY, INC. f/k/a DALLOZ
SAFETY, INC. f/k/a WGM SAFETY CORPORATION |
ALBEN N. HOPKINS, ALBEN NORRIS HOPKINS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | THOMAS HALL, ET AL. | GUY GLADSTONE FISHER, GERALD MAPLES |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Service of process - Good cause - M.R.C.P. 4(h) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bacou-Dalloz Safety, Inc., is one of 85 defendants sued by 2,779 plaintiffs who allege various silica-related personal injuries. The correct agent for service of process upon Bacou Dalloz is Corporation Service Company, located at 2711 Centerville Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. In the plaintiffs’ original complaint filed on September 13, 2002, the agent for service of process for Bacou-Dalloz was incorrectly listed as Corporate Service Company, 1013 Center Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19805. For some reason, the complaint and process ended up at CT Corporation System, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. CT Corporation System returned the documents and informed plaintiffs’ counsel that it was not the registered agent for Bacou-Dalloz. The plaintiffs made no further attempt to serve the original complaint on Bacou-Dalloz. Plaintiffs then filed their First Amended Complaint which again incorrectly listed Corporate Service Company, 1013 Center Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19805, as the agent for service of process for Bacou-Dalloz, but never attempted to serve Bacou-Dalloz at any address with the First Amended Complaint. Nearly fifteen months later, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint which again recited an incorrect address for Bacou-Dalloz’s agent for process, 1013 Center Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, although the agent’s name was corrected. The motion was granted, and Bacou-Dalloz was somehow served with the Second Amended Complaint. Bacou-Dalloz filed its Motion to Dismiss and Answer and Defenses to the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, asserting it was served with process 499 days after the 120-day service period had expired. After the court denied the motion, Bacou-Dalloz filed a Petition for Interlocutory Appeal, which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Bacou-Dalloz argues that the circuit court erred by denying its Motion to Dismiss for failure to serve within the 120-day period provided by M.R.C.P. 4(h). When service is not made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, a plaintiff must show good cause under Rule 4(h) why process was not served within that period, or dismissal of the suit is required. In order to establish good cause, plaintiffs must demonstrate at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice. Here, plaintiffs never explained when they were informed of their mistake why process was not reissued for Bacou-Dalloz’s agent for process at its correct address and served during the 120-day period or why they did not attempt to serve process for 499 days following the expiration of the 120-day service period. Plaintiffs’ inaction, without adequate explanation, shows a lack of good cause far beyond excusable neglect. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
