Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02158/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Medical Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Richard McFarland
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

RICHARD MCFARLAND PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2158

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANT

O R D E R

On this 7th day of February 2006, there comes on for consideration

the motions to dismiss filed by Defendant (Docs. 7, 13), Plaintiff’s

responses (Docs. 8, 12, 16-17) and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 10). Also

before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Amended Complaint

(Docs. 18-19). Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to strike.

The Court, being well and sufficiently advised in the premises, finds

that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 7, 13) should be GRANTED and

Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.

On December 17, 2004, Plaintiff filed this products liability

action in the Circuit Court of Scott County. Plaintiff filed numerous

motions seeking extensions of time to serve Defendant. (Doc. 7, Exs.

C, E, G & H). Defendant was finally served on October 13, 2005 and

removed the action to this Court on November 14, 2005. In its motions

before this Court, Defendant seeks the dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint based upon untimely service and failure to state a claim.

Defendant also seeks to have Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint stricken as

untimely filed.

Case 2:05-cv-02158-RTD Document 22 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

Defendant first contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be

dismissed as Plaintiff did not timely serve Defendant with process in

accordance with Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure which

states:

If service of the summons is not made upon a defendant within

120 days after the filing of the complaint, the action shall

be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice... If a

motion to extend is made within 120 days of the filing of the

suit, the time for service may be extended by the court upon

a showing of good cause. 

Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(I).

The Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently held that service

requirements under Rule 4 must be strictly construed and compliance with

them must be exact. See Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC

Co., 120 S.W.3d 525 (Ark. 2003). In King v. Carney, 20 S.W.3d 341 (Ark.

2000), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that there are two requirements

of Rule 4(i) in order to obtain an extension of time to serve summons:

(1) the timely filing of a motion for an extension, and (2) a showing

of good cause. In Henyan v. Peek, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2004 WL 2750097 (Ark.

Dec. 2, 2004), the court expanded this holding to include that the

showing of good cause must be made prior to the granting of an

extension.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s initial motion for an extension

was timely filed. However, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to

show good cause prior to the granting of the extension. In Plaintiff’s

motion (Doc. 7, Ex. C), he merely states that “plaintiff has been unable

Case 2:05-cv-02158-RTD Document 22 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

to obtain service on the defendant.” This cannot equate to a showing

of good cause, and there is nothing in the order granting the extension

indicating that Plaintiff had made the required showing of good cause.

As in Henyan, Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the service

requirements of Rule 4 by not making a contemporaneous showing of good

cause. Further, Plaintiff’s attempt to demonstrate good cause after the

fact does not cure his failure to strictly comply with Rule 4.

Therefore, Defendant’s motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant’s Motion to Strike

(Doc. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02158-RTD Document 22 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>