I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 4 0 8 - CO A P ER RI EC E C OLL I NS , I NDI VI DUAL LY AND AS THE P ARE NT , LE GAL GUA RDI AN AND NE XT FR I EN D O F SH O N I Q W A C O LL I N S, I NDI VI DUAL LY AND AS THE P ARE NT , LE GAL GUARDI AN AND ON BE HALF OF ANY AN D AL L W RO NG F UL DE AT H B E NE F I CI AR I E S OF S HA TAJ A NI KEAR A CO LLI NS, DECEASED APP ELLANTS

v. TOI KUS W ES TB ROOK, M . D. APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 06/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. VER NO N R
. CO TTEN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LE AKE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : S HANE F
. L ANGS T ON RE BE CC A M
. L ANGS T ON J E S S I CA E
. M UR RA Y AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : L
. CA RL HAGW OOD J
. M I CH AE L CO L E M AN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH TR I A L C O U RT D I SPO SI TI O N : D EFEN D A N T’ S M O TI O N TO D I SM I SS GR AN TED D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 02/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. BARNES, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. P e rrie c e C o lli n s, th e p a re n t a n d leg a l g u a rd ian a n d o f S h o n iq w a C o lli n s, a n d o n b e h a lf
o f th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th b e n e fic ia ri e s o f S h a taja N ik e a ra C o lli n s, filed su it i n L e a k e C o u n ty

### Othe r name d def endants inc lude d Leake CountyM em ori alHospi ta l, theLeake 1 

### Co unty B oardof S up erviso rs, andEd ith V ow ell, R.N ., but the claims ag ainst th ese defen dants are no t at issue inthis ap peal. 2 C irc u it C o u rt a g a in st D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k (D r. T o ik u s), a m o n g o th e rs, fo r n e g lig e n c e in 1 the d el i very of S ho niqw a’s st i l l bo rn baby , S h ataja. D r. T oikus f i l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, cl ai m i ng i ns uf

f i ci ents ervi ce of

pr oces s , beca us e the per s on s erved w i th the compl ai ntw as hi s fa ther , D r . Jes s e W es tbr ook (D r . Jes s e) , a dent i s ti n G erm ant ow n, T ennes s ee, w ho w as notauthor i zed t o accepts ervi ce f orhi s s on. T he tr i al courtagr eed, f i ndi ng the 120- day d e a d lin e to se rv e p ro c e ss h a d e x p ire d , an d P lain tiffs h a d sh o w n n o g o o d c a u se o r e x c u sa b le negl ectas t o w hy pr oces s ha d notbe en t i m el y s erved. W hi l e thi s C our tm ay nothave made the s ame deci s i on as the tr i al court , w e ca nnots ay the tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f

f i r m. S TA TE M EN T OF F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n D ece m ber16, 2011, P l ai nt i f f s fi l ed t hei rcompl ai ntof a w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m due t o m edi cal m al pr act i ce a gai ns tD ef endant s . T he compl ai ntal l eged thaton J une 30, 2010, ni net een- year - ol d Shoni qw a w as admi t t ed t o the Leake Count y M emori al H os pi t al
emer gency r oom underthe ca r e of i t s s t af f and D r . T oi kus , com pl ai ni ng of bl oody di s char ge. Shoni qw a w as appr oxi m at el y t hi r ty- s i x w eeks pr egnant . Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m ed thati n s pi t e of
s i gns of f et al di s tr es s , ne i therthe phys i ci an norhi s nur s e m ade any att empt t o i nt ervene or del i verthe i nf

ant , and s he w as ul t i m at el y del i ver ed s t i l l born. ¶3
. C o u n se l fo r P lain ti ffs, L an g ston & L an g ston P L L C (L an g ston ), ex p lain e d th a t it

### 3

del egat ed the r es pons i bi l i ty of s ervi ng pr oces s on D ef endant s t o i t s f

or m erl ong- t i m e l egal
a s s i s t a n t . Ho we v e r , a s th e l e g a l a s s i s t a n twa s e x p e r i e n c i n g “ v e ry e x tr e me p e r s o n a l p r o b l e ms d u ri n g this pe ri o d o f t im e,” lea d c o u n sel S h an e L an g ston d isco v ere d o n ly a fe w d ay s b efo re the e x p ir ati o n of th e 1 2 0 -da y de ad li n e, as p rov ided by M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 4( h) , thatther e had be en no pr oces s s erved on D ef endant s . T he tr i al c our tdoc keti ndi cat es thats um m ons es f

orD r . T oi kus and the otherdef endant s w er e noteven i s s ued unt i l A pr i l 13, 2012, one day pr i ort o the A pr i l 14, 2012 deadl i ne. ¶4. O n A pr i l 11, 2012, L angs t on hi r ed Q uantum Pr oces s , a pr of es s i onal pr oces s - s ervi ng
co m p an y in H att iesb u rg, M issi ssipp i, to se rve D efend ants . L ang st on t old Q uan tum P roce ss’s
m anage r , D avy K ei th, thatpr oces s had t o be s erved on D r . T oi kus on orbef ore A pr i l 14, 2012, w hi ch w as a Satur day. O n A pr i l 12, 2012, at2: 55 p. m . , at t orney J ack H unt , an
as s oci at e atL angs t on, em ai l ed K ei th t he not i ce of summ ons . O n Fr i day, A pr i l 13, 2012, at 2: 06 p. m . , H untas ked i f K ei th ha d “ any l uck s o f ar ?” A t3: 23 p. m . , K ei th emai l ed H untand updat ed hi m on t he di f

f i cul t i es of f

i ndi ng D r . T oi kus , s t at i ng “the cha nces of l ocat i ng and
s ervi ng [ D r . T oi kus ] t oday ar e very s l i m . ” K ei th det ai l ed thata Lexi s N exi s s ear ch f or “T oikus W estb rook” resul t ed in several po ssi ble address es f or hi m i n N ew O rl eans, L oui s i ana, and G erm ant ow n, T ennes s ee. H ow ever , ei ght een mi nut es l at er , K ei th s entan
em ai l st at i ng , “I can m ake t his happ en bu ti t ’s going t o b e m ore than I s t at ed. $3 00
. P l ease conf i r m . ” A conf

i r m at i on emai l w as t hen s entback f r om H untt o K ei th at3: 52 p. m . , s t at i ng

“ e v e ry th in g is in m o tio n .” ¶5. Soon af

t ers endi ng thi s emai l , K ei th t es t i f i ed he cal l ed a r es i dent i al t el ephone num ber

### It

is di sput ed whether

the Incr ediblePiz za

em ploye e pa ged “ Dr. Toikus Wes tbrook” 2 

### or “D r. Westb roo k,” b ut P laintiffs claimthis p oint is irrelevant becau se Murphree, in h is affidav it, believ ed ingo odfaith h e served“Dr. T oikus W estbro ok .” On thi s dateMurphreeal so e xec ute d an aff idavit of ser vic e, swearing that

he se rve d 3 

### the d ocuments to “To iku s Westb roo k” o n April 1 3 at 5 :23 p.m. 4 a t a loc a tio n tha t m a tch e d D r. T o ik u s’s las t kn o w n ad d re ss in G e rm a n to w n , a n d left a
m es s age f

or“D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook. ” S om eon e cal l ed K ei th back f r om the number , and K e i th e xp l a i ne d h e ha d a de l i ve r y f or“ D r . Toi ku s W e s tbr oo k. ” I ni t i a l l y, the per s on
re sp o n d e d , “h e ’s n o t av a ilab le.” K e ith th e n a d m itt e d ly e m p lo y e d a tec h n iq u e u se d in h is pr of es s i on cal l ed a “ pr et ext , ” and mi s r epr es ent ed t o the ca l l er t hat he had a del i very f r om “M axi m Physi ci ans, ” D r . T oi kus ’ s empl oyer . K ei th cl ai m s the per s on on the phone then
sa id : “O h , tha t’s m e . Y o u c a n b rin g th a t to m e .” T h e p e rso n w a s o n h is w a y to In c re d ib le P izza in G erm an tow n , an d ask ed if h e c o u ld m ee t K eith there
. K eith then arran g ed for G ary M urphr ee, a pr oces s s erveri n M emphi s , T ennes s ee, t o m eett he al l eged D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook atI ncr edi bl e Pi zza i n G erm ant ow n. ¶6. O n Fr i day, A pr i l 13, M urphree arr i ved atIncr edibl e P i zza an d asked t hat the
r es t aur antpage “ T oi kus W es tbr ook. ” A n empl oyee then es cort ed M urphr ee t o a back r oom 2
w her e a ge nt l ema n w as s i t t i ng. M urphr ee t es t i f i ed w hen as ked i f

he w as “Toi kus W es tbr ook, ” the man s ai d “yes , ” and M urphr ee, w ho had t he pape r s i n a box, opened i tand h a n d e d h im th e s u m m o n s a n d c o m p lain t. A t th is p o in t, P lain tiffs c laim e d th e y b e liev e d a ll 3
o f D efe n d an ts ha d b ee n ti m ely s erv ed b y the A p ri l 14 1 2 0 -d ay d ea d li n e, i n clud ing D r. T oikus.

### 5

¶7. O n M ay 7, 2012, D r . T oi kus fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , cl ai m i ng D r . J es s e W es tbr ook, D r . T oi kus ’ s f

a the r , h a d be e n s e r ve d i n G e r mant own i ns t e a d of h i m, a nd the r e f

or e t he compl ai nts houl d be di s m i s s ed due t o i ns uf f i ci ents ervi ce of

pr oces s . O n M ay 21, 2012, an
a ffid a v it i n su p p o rt o f th e m o tio n to d ism iss , ex e c u ted b y D r. Je ss e o n M a y 7 , w a s file d w ith th e trial c o u rt. D r. Je ss e ’s a ffid a v it state d th a t h e w a s a d e n tis t, th a t h e w a s s e rv e d w ith p r o c e s s o n Ap r i l 1 3 , a n d th a th e h a d n o kn o wl e d g e o f th i s c a s e . I ta l s o g a v e h i s h o me addr es s i n G erm ant ow n. ¶8. I n J une 2012, Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a r es po nse i n o pp osi t i on t o the m oti on , at t aching
s uppor t i ng af

f i davi t s fr om K ei th and M urphr ee. K ei th’ s af f i davi texpl ai ned how he r an a L e x is N e x is s e a rc h to f

in d s e v e ra l a d d re s s e s a n d p h o n e n u m b e rs fo r “ D r. T o ik u s W e s tb ro o k .” E very t el ephone numberf or“Toi kus W es tbr ook” w as cal l ed, buton l y t he cal l eratt he G erm an tow n p h o n e n u m b er resp o n d ed
. W h en K eith told the ca ll er he ha d a de li v ery for “D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k ” f

ro m M a x im P h y sic ian s, th e c a ller r e sp o n d e d h e w a s o n h is w a y to I ncr edi bl e Pi zza , and aske d t o be m ett her e. M urphr ee’ s af f i davi tcl ai m ed he s erved w ho he bel i eved w as D r . T oi kus , and the per s on i dent i f i ed hi m s el f

as “D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook” att he pi zza pl ace . ¶9. D r . T oi kus f

i l ed a r epl y t o Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ r es pons e t o the m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and att ache d
a seco nd aff

i dav i tby D r. Jess e, add i ng m ore det ai l s of the ev ents of A pri l 14
. In i t , D r. Jess e acknow l edged thathe had “r ece i ved a t el ephone c al l athi s hom e f r om a man st at i ng he had
som e i m po rt ant docu m ents regar ding ph ysi ci an servi ces f or a ‘ D r. W estbrook
. ’” D r. Jess e claim ed h e iden ti fi ed h im self as “D r. W estb roo k , ” an d told the c all er h e an d h is f am il y w ere

### In January20 13 , the trial ju dg e sub mitted a letter op inio n fin din g ag ainst P laintiffs. 4 

### Ho wev er, befo re a final ju dg ment h ad b een entered, th e Miss is si p p i C ourt of App eals re ver se d thesametria l judge ’s dism is sa l of a def endant in another

ca seinvolving insuf

fi ci ent se rvi ceof proce ss in Lewi sv. Fores t

Fa mi l yPrac ti c eClini cP. A. , 124 So. 3d678 (Miss. C t. App. 2013) . Thetria l c ourt re ques te d theparti es subm it mem oranda di sc uss ing t

he Lew is dec is ion’ s i mpa ct . Subs eque ntly, the Miss is sippi Suprem e Cour t reve rs ed the Cour

t of Appeals’ decision in Lewi sv . Fo res t

Fa mi l yPrac ti c eClini cP. A. , 12 4 S o. 3 d 6 54 (Miss. 2013). 6 heade d t o di nneratI ncr edi bl e Pi zza . A tthe r es t aur ant , a m an appr oache d hi m w i th a pi zza box and pul l ed outs om e document s , handi ng t hem t o D r . Jes s e and st at i ng, “you have now b e e n s e rv e d .” ¶10. T he f

i r s thear i ng on the mot i on to dis m i ss w as i n June 2012. T he hea r i ng i s not tr ans cr i bed f

orthe r ecor d, butthe uncont es t ed af f i davi tof J es s i ca M urr ay, couns el f or Pl ai nt i f f s , s t at ed thatne i therD r . J es s e norD r . Toi kus a t t ended the hea r i ng and no addi t i onal evi dence w as of

f er ed. T he tr i al j udge dec i ded t o cont i nue the hea r i ng, i nf or m i ng couns el t hat he w ou l d li ke to hear l i ve tes t i m on y fr om the rel evan tw i tnesses. ¶ 1 1
. A t th e se c o n d h e a rin g o n O c to b e r 31 , 2 0 1 2 , P lain tiffs c a lled K e ith an d M u rp h re e to tes tify , a n d att o rne y S h an e L an g ston g av e testi m o n y ab o u t his fi rm ’s efforts t o serv e D r. T oi kus
. T he tr i al c our tgr ant ed D r . Toi kus ’ s mot i on t o f i l e an af f i davi t , w hi ch he s ubm i t t ed t o the courton N ovember26, 2012. I n the af f i davi t , he mer el y s t at ed thathe w as a r es i dent of N ew O r l eans , gi vi ng hi s addr es s ther e, al ong w i th hi s f ather ’ s addr es s i n G erm ant ow n, and st at ed h e w as neve r s erved w i th p rocess . ¶1 2
. O n F eb rua ry 8 , 2 0 1 3 , the tri al c o u rte n tered a jud g m en t o f d ism iss a l in fav o r o f D r. T oi kus
. T he courtf

ound D r . T oi kus had no tb een ser ved w i thi n the 120- day per i od, and 4

### Whil e thetri alc ourt in i ts f ina l judgm ent

di d not make a spe ci fi c f inding for la ck of 5 

### good ca use , i t i s i mpl ic it

in t he r uling. 7 Pl ai nt i f f s had s how n no “good ca us e” or“exc us abl e negl ect ” t o j us t i f y an enl ar gementof t i m e t o s erve hi m . Pl ai nt i f f s ( now A ppel l ant s ) t i m el y appea l ed. 5 S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶13. T he appel l at e court r evi ew s a tr i al cou rt ’s grant or deni al of a m ot i on t o di s m i s s de
n o v o . Johns on v. R ao , 9 5 2 S o . 2 d 15 1 , 15 4 (¶9 ) ( M iss. 20 0 7 ). H o w ev er, the “ tr ial co u rt ’s fi n d ing o f fact on the e x ist en ce o f go o d ca u se fo r th e d elay in se rvice o f pr o c e ss [is] ‘ a di s cr et i onary rul i ng and ent i t l ed t o de f er ent i al r evi ew ’ on a ppeal
. ” Tri pl e “C ” Trans

p. I nc.
v. D i cke ns , 870 So. 2d 1195, 1197 ( ¶15) ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. “W hen r evi ew i ng fa c t-b a se d fin d in g s, [th e a p p e llate c o u rt] w ill o n ly ex a m in e w h e th e r th e tri a l co u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on and w hetherther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence support i ng t he det erm i nat i on. ” I d. at 1 1 9 7 -98 (¶1 5 ). ¶1 4. T he tr i a l c ou r t ’ s de t e r mi na t i on of “ w he the r the r e i s go od c a us e f or f ai l ur e t o s er ve pr oces s i s ‘ a di s cr et i onary rul i ng on the partof the tr i al courtand i s ent i t l ed t o defer ent i al
r evi ew of

w hetherthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on and w hetherther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence support i ng t he det erm i nat i on. ’ ” Lew is E ntm ’ tI nc. v. B r ady , 142 So. 3d 396, 398 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . 2014) ( quot i ng R ai ns v. G ar dner , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 7 (¶1 8 ) (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )).

“ To th e d e g r e e th a ta tr i a l j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n to rd e n y a mo t i o n f o ra n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me i s bas ed upon pr ece ptof l aw , the s t andar d f

ort he [ appel l at e court ] ’ s r evi ew s hal l be

‘ pl enary’ ; ot herw i s e, [ the appe l l at e court ] s hal l s i m pl y appl y the abus e- of
- di s cr et i on

### 8

s t andar d. ” R ai ns , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d at 11 9 8 (¶1 9 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). A N A L Y S IS ¶15
. A pp el l ants argue t hat D r. T oikus w ai ved h i s defense o f i nsuff i ci ent service of process b e c a u se , u n til h e filed a n u n tim e ly a ffid a v it afte r th e se c o n d h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n to d ism iss , the tes tim o n y h a d b e e n u n c o n tra d icte d th a t D r. T o ik u s w a s tim e ly s e rv e d o n A p ril 1 3 . A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t ev e n if th is C o u rt c o n sid e rs D r. T o ik u s’s u n tim e ly a ffid a v it, h is
sw orn st at em ent that he w as never served w i th process i s ov ercom e by process se rve rs K ei th’s and M urp h ree ’s aff i dav i t s, w hich st at e t hey tho ug ht they did serve D r. T oikus. A ppel l ant s al s o cl ai m thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s dis cret i on i n denyi ng thei rnum er ous reque sts f

or addit i on al t i m e un der the “g oo d-cause” and / or “excu sabl e-negl ect ” st and ards. ¶16
. R ule 4( h) provi des: I f a s ervi ce of

the s um m ons and compl ai nti s notm ade upon a def endant w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s a fte r th e filing o f th e co m p lain t an d the p a rty o n w h o se b e h a lf s uch s ervi ce w as r equi r ed ca nnots how good caus e w hy s uch s ervi ce w as not m ade w i thi n thatper i od, the ac t i on s hal l be di s m i s s ed. “In order t o es t abl i s h thatgood caus e exi s t s f orl at e s ervi ce, a pl ai nt i f f m us thave made a di l i gentef

f or tt o ef f ects ervi ce. ” Fo s s v . Wi l l i a ms , 993 So. 2d 378, 379 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng Mont

gom er y v. Sm i thK l i ne Beecham C or p. , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 (¶1 5 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). I ns t ance s w her e good caus e exi s t s i ncl ude: “[ W ] hen t he f ai l ur e i s a r es ul tof

the conduc tof a thi r d per s on; w hen t he def endanthas eva ded se r vi ce of pr oces s orengage d i n m i s l eadi ng conduct ; w hen the pl ai nt i f f has act ed di l i gent l y; w hen ther e ar e under s t andabl e mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s ; orw hen the pl ai nt i f f i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e ori n f or m a paupe r i s . ” Id
. ( ci t i ng

### The Mi ss is sippi Suprem e Cour t, in Holmes , c it es Wri ght and Miller’s Fe deral 6 

### Pra ctic e and Proc edur e tre atis e r egarding theconc ept of “ good ca

use ”: [G] ood ca usei s likely (but not always ) t o be f ound when the pl ainti ff

’s fa ilure to c ompl et e s er

vic e in time ly f

as hion i s a

re sult of the c onduct

of a third perso n, typic al ly t

he proce ss se rve r, thedef endant ha s e vade d se rvi ceof the pro cess or en gag ed inmisleadin g co nduct, th e plaintiff has acteddilig entlyin tryin g to effect service or there are un derstan dab le mitigatin g circumstances, or th e plaintiff is pro ceedin g p ro se o r in fo rma pauperis. Holmes , 815 So. 2 d at 1 186 (¶ 12) ( quoting 4B Charl es Alan Wri ght & Ar thur R. Mi ll er , Fed eral Practice & Pro cedu re§ 1137, at 342 (3d e d. 2000) ). 9 H olm es v. C oas tTrans i tA uth. , 815 So. 2d 1183, 1186 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . 2002) )
. I f i tappea r s t hat pr oces s cannotbe s erved w i thi n the 120- day per i od, a di l i gentpl ai nt i f f s houl d f i l e a mot i on f oraddi t i onal t i m e t o s erve pr oces s . “Such di l i gence w oul d s uppor tan al l egat i on thatgood
caus e exi s t s f

orf ai l ur e t o s erve pr oces s t i m el y. ” St ut t s v. Mi l l er , 37 S o. 3d 1, 6 (¶15 ) ( M i ss. 2010) ( quot i ng Mon t

go m ery , 910 So. 2d at545 ( ¶14) ). “‘G ood caus e’ can ne verbe dem on strat ed w here p lai n t i ff has no tbeen dil i gen ti n att em pti ng t o serve process”; i ti s a
s tr i cts t andar d. Mon t

go m ery , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d at 54 5 , 5 4 8 (¶¶ 1 3 , 2 4 ). 6 ¶17. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e ( 6) ( b) ( 2) author i zes the tr i al court t o enl ar ge the 1 2 0 -d a y p e rio d w h e n th e re q u e st is m a d e a fte r th is d e a d lin e u p o n a sh o w in g o f “ e x c u sa b le
n e g lect. ” T h e M issi ssipp i S u p rem e C o u rtha s estab li sh ed th at “a p lai n ti ff att em p tin g to
e sta b lish ‘g o o d c a u se ’ m u st sh o w ‘at lea st a s m u c h as w o u ld b e re q u ire d to sh o w e x c u sa b le negl ect , as t o w hi ch s i m pl e i nadver t ence orm i s t ake of couns el ori gnor ance of the rul es
us ual l y does nots uf

f i ce. ’ ” S tu tts , 37 So. 3d at4 ( ¶9) ( ci t i ng H olm es , 8 15 S o. 2 d at1186 (¶1 1 )).

### “[ W] ai ting unti l t he la st day to ser ve proc es s on a defe ndant does not cons ti tut e good 7 

### ca use .” Lo ng

v. Mem ’l Ho sp. a t Gu lfpo rt , 969 So. 2d 35, 40 (¶10) (Mi ss . 2007) (c iting Powe v. Byrd, 892 So. 2d 223, 227 (¶9) (Mi ss . 2004) ). 10 ¶ 1 8
. A p p e llan ts c o n ten d th a t th e W e stb ro o k s’ a ffid a v its w e re u n tim e ly a n d in su ffic ien t. T hey compl ai n thati n the mot i on t o di s m i s s , D r . J es s e’ s af fi dav i tw as notatt ache d but p ro m ise d a s “ fo rth c o m in g ,” a n d w h e n th e a ffid a v it w a s e v e n tu a lly filed tw o w e e k s la ter , it of f er ed no det ai l s orexpl anat i on of w hatD r . J es s e s ai d w hen bei ng served, w her e D r . T oi kus
w as, or w h at he d id w ith the s u m m o n s a ft er b eing serv ed
. A p p ell an ts al so arg u e tha t D r. T o ik u s n e v e r p ro v id e d sw o rn e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s n o t ti m e ly se rv e d w ith p ro c e ss . H is
a ffid a v it, e x e c u ted tw o w e e k s a fte r th e se c o n d h e a ri n g o n th e m o tio n to d ism iss , m e re ly stat es h e w as n ev er s erv ed w ith p roc ess. A p p ell an ts argu e this is i n su ffi cien t bec au se D r. T oikus do es no to ff

er an exp l anati on of the tel eph on e cal l w i th K ei th, the servi ce of process atthe pi zza pl ace , orw hetherhi s f atherdel i ver ed the s um m ons t o hi m bef or e A pr i l 14. T hey ther ef or e cont end the tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n acc ept i ng the “ba r e- boned” l egal
con cl usi on that D r. T oikus had nev er been served w i th p rocess . ¶ 1 9
. F ro m th e re c o rd , th e tr ia l c o u rt c o u ld c lea rly fin d th a t D r. T o ik u s w a s n o t tim e ly
s erved w i thi n the 120- day per i od. A ppel l ant s di d notatt empt t o s erve pr oces s on D r . T oi kus unt i l tw o days pr i ort o the expi r at i on o f t he 12 0-day de adl i ne, beca us e Langst on di d not
r eal i ze i t s l egal as s i s t anthad notal r eady s erved D ef endant s due t o per s onal pr obl ems. T hen, 7 on A pr i l 13, t he pr oces s s erveri ndi cat ed t o L angs t on thatthe cha nces of l ocat i ng and se r vi ng D r. T oi kus on thatday w er e “ve r y s l i m ” bec aus e a Lexi s N exi s s ear ch s how ed D r . T oi kus

### 11

m i ghthave mor e than one phys i cal addre s s – one i n G erm ant ow n and s ever al pr i orN ew O r l eans addr es s es , w i th t he l at es tone l i s t ed as curr entthr ough A pr i l 2012. B uti n a
s ubs equent em ai l , K ei th w as m or e pos i t i ve, s t at i ng he coul d “make i thappen” and “eve rythi ng i s i n m ot i on. ” K ei th c ont act ed D r . Toi kus ’ s e m pl oyer , M axi m Physi ci ans , w ho conf i r m ed t o K ei th thathe l i ved i n N ew O r l eans . H ow ever, K ei th deci ded t o pur s ue the G erm ant ow n addr es s , and nott he cor r ectN ew O r l eans addr es s , t el ephone number , and emai l
. A s a r es ul t , M urphr ee s erved the w r ong D r. W estbrook ( J es s e) w i th the compl ai nt i ns t ead. ¶2 0
. W h ile a re tu rn o f service give s ri se to a p resu m p ti o n th at s e rv ice o c c u rre d , th is p re s u m p tio n is re b u tta b le
. McC ai n v. D auz at , 791 S o. 2d 839, 842 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng P oi nt erv. H

uf f m an , 5 0 9 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 2 (M iss
. 1 9 8 7 )). T h e p re su m p tio n is re b u tted so lely b y th e te s tim o n y o f t h e p a rt y d is p u tin g s e r v ic e . Lam pt on- R ei d C o. v. A l l en , 17 7 M i ss. 6 9 8 ,7 1 4 , 1 7 1 S o . 7 8 0 , 7 8 3 -8 4 (1 9 3 7 ). D r. T o iku s m o v e d th e trial c o u rt to a llo w h im to file
a n a ffid a v it, a n d h is re q u e st w a s g ra n ted . T h e a ffid a v it state d h e h a d n e v e r b e e n se rv e d w ith process i n thi s case. M oreove r, D r. Jess e fi l ed tw o aff i dav i t s st at i ng thath e, n ot D r. T oikus,
w a s s e rv e d w ith p ro c e ss a t In c re d ib le P iz z a . W e fin d th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n r el yi ng on thes e af f i davi t s and i n f

i ndi ng D r . T oi kus w as nott i m el y s erved. ¶21. A s t o w hether“ good c aus e” or“ excus abl e negl ect ” w as show n, A pp el l ants fi rs t
c o n ten d th a t th e y filed n u m e ro u s a p p lica tio n s fo r an ex ten sio n o f ti m e b e fo re the trial c o u rt,
w hi ch w er e neve racknow l edged, and thatthi s w as err or . A ppel l ant s r eques t ed addi t i onal ti m e in th e fo ll o w ing instan ce s: ( 1 ) i n Ju n e 2 0 1 2 , they req u ested ad d it ion al t im e to s erv e D r.

### 12

T oi kus “i n the al t ernat i ve” i n thei rr es pons e t o D ef endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s ; (2) i n O ct ober 2012, dur i ng ora l ar gum ent , t hey as ked f oraddi t i onal t i m e t o serve D r . T oi kus , agai n “i n the al t ernat i ve”; ( 3) i n N ovember2012, t hey i ncl uded a s ect i on i n thei rpos t - hear i ng br i ef about
a n e x ten sio n o f tim e a n d “ g o o d c a u se ” sh o w n ; an d (4 ) in D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 , in th e ir p o sthear i ng r ebutt al br i ef

, they r eques t ed an e xt ens i on of t i m e. ¶2 2
. In o rde r for the tr ial co u rt to all o w an ex tens ion o f ti m e to serv e p roc ess, the p lai n ti ff
m us tshow “good caus e” as t o w hy s ervi ce ha s notbeen c om pl et ed w i thi n the 120- day per i od
m an d ated b y R u le 4(h ) or “ ex cu sab le ne g lect” u n d er R u le 6(b )(2). A s th e trial co u rt
corr ect l y not ed i n i t s f

i nal j udgm ent , A ppel l ant s f ai l ed t o f i l e a mot i on f

oran ext ens i on of t i m e before th e 1 2 0 -da y de ad li n e. A lth o u g h A p p ell an ts take i ssu e w ith th e tr ial c o u rt’s
o p inion that the e m ail b y K eith , stat ing that the c h an c e o f s e rv ing D r. T o iku s w as “ v ery sli m , ” sh o u ld h av e “ raised the b ar” an d m o ti v ated co u n sel t o req u est ad d it ion al t im e b efo re the expi r at i on of

the 120- day dea dl i ne, w e do notf i nd thatthe tr i al courtover emphasi zed the
ear l i erpor t i on of

the emai l i n m aki ng i t s rul i ng. ¶23. A ppel l ant s ci t e J e n k in s v . O sw a ld , 3 So. 3d 746 ( M i s s . 2009) t o s how that the l ack of
an app l i cat i on f

oran ext ens i on of

t i m e i s nota “f

at al f l aw . ” I n Jenki ns , the p l a i nt i f f w as
s e rv e d w ith p ro c e s s fo u r y e a rs a ft e r t h e 1 2 0 -d a y d e a d lin e . I d. a t747 ( ¶2)
. Evi dence s how ed t he pla i nt i f

f had att empt ed t o s erve pr oces s on the def endantattw o phys i cal addr es s es th o u g h t to b e the d e fe n d a n t’s d w e lli n g s, a s w e ll as a ttem p ted n u m e ro u s tim e s to lo c a te h is
a d d re s s fo r m a n y y e a rs , w ith o u t s u c c e s s . I d. at747- 48 ( ¶¶4- 5)
. T he pl ai nt i f f had notf

i l ed
a m o tio n fo r en lar g e m e n t of tim e , b u t th e trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t tes tim o n y sh o w e d “ re a so n a b ly

### 13

d ilig e n t e ff

o rt s ” to s e rv e p ro c e s s w ith in th e 1 2 0 -d a y p e ri o d , a n d “ g o o d c a u s e ” e x is te d
. I d. at749 ( ¶11)
. T he tr i al c our tde ni ed the def endant ’ s mot i on t o qua s h pr oces s a nd di s m i s s , and th e s u p re m e c o u rt a ff

ir m e d
. I d. at 75 0 -51 (¶¶ 1 5 , 1 7 ). ¶24. A ppel l ant s , ci t i ng Foss , ar gue that good cause and excus abl e negl ect exi s t ed i n t he i ns t antcas e. I n Foss , the pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el l ear ned of l ocal couns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o s erve the d e fe n d a n ts tw o d a y s b e fo re th e 1 2 0 -d a y d e a d lin e . Foss , 9 9 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 7 8 -7 9 (¶ ¶ 2 , 5 ). A ll def endant s w er e s erved bef or e the 120- day dea dl i ne exc eptone, D r . Foss , w ho w as s erved
o n th e 1 2 1 s t d a y . I

d. at 37 9 (¶2 ). T h e su p rem e c o u rtaffirm ed the tri al c o u rt ’s d en ial o f D r. Foss ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , agr eei ng w i th the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng t hatther e w as s uf f i ci ent
e v id e n c e to c o n s titu te g o o d c a u s e . I d. at 38 0 (¶¶ 9 -10 ). ¶ 2 5
. W e f

in d th a t Jenki ns i s di s t i ng ui s ha bl e f r om the pr e s e nt c a s e be c a us e the r e w a s no di f f i cul ty i n f

i ndi ng D r . T oi kus ’ s addr es s . A ppel l ant s had D r . T oi kus ’ s cor r ectN ew O r l eans ad d ress, co n fi rm ed b y his em p loy er, as w ell as a G erm an tow n ad d ress. T h e p roc ess s erv ers chos e t o pur s ue the G erm ant ow n a ddr es s , i ns t ead of N ew O r l eans , i n or dert o att empt s ervi ce
on D r. T oikus. K ei th st at es i n h i s aff i dav i tthat he cal l ed ev ery num ber l i st ed for D r. T oikus, l eavi ng mess ages a f

t err ece i vi ng no ans w er , a nd thathe r ece i ved a r eturn phon e cal l back fro m the G e rm a n to w n p h o n e n u m b e r. W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t th e L e x isN e x is s e a rc h re su lts
s how thatthe name “W es tbr ook J es s e L D D S/ O FC ” w as l i s t ed bes i de the Tennes s ee phone
n u m b e r. K e ith , the re fo re , sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a re o f th e p o ss ib ili ty th a t h e w a s d e a lin g w ith a di f f er entD r . W es tbr ook. A l s o, the Jenki ns courtdi d nothol d thatthe f ai l ur e t o f

i l e f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e w as acc ept abl e. R ather , t he tr i al courtdeemed the l ack of an ext ens i on

### 14

“pr obl emat i c, ” butthe s upr eme courta gr eed w i th the tr i al courtthatt es t i m ony s how ed the pl ai nt i f f m ade “r eas onabl y di l i gentef f or t s ” t o serve t he def

endant , w hi ch s at i s f

i ed the goodcaus e st andar d. T he ef

f ort s t o serve pr oces s i n Jenki ns w er e much m or e di l i gentthan i n t he i ns t antcas e. ¶ 2 6
. Foss i s al s o di s t i nguis hab l e, as n oted by the t ri al courti n thi s cas e. I n Foss , t he def endantw as s erved one da y l at e; her e, as w e have al r eady not ed, D r. T oi kus w as never
s erved. Fur ther , the pl ai nt i f f’ s att orney i n Foss di d notknow s ervi ce on the def endantw as one day l at e unt i l the def endantf i l ed hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , pr om pt i ng the pl ai nt i f f t o f i l e a
m ot i on f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e. T he tr i al courtm ade a f act - bas ed f

i ndi ng thatthe
m i s comm uni cat i on be tw een the pl ai nt i f f’ s a t t orneys ove rw ho w as r es pons i bl e forservi ng the def endantconst i tut ed good fa i th. H er e, ther e w as no m i s comm uni cat i on overw ho w as t o s e r v e Dr
. T o i k u s . T h e o n l y mi s c o mm u n i c a t i o n wa s wh i c h Dr
. W e s tb r o o k wa s s e r v e d
. As D r. Jess e w as l i st ed as the veri fi ed con t actf or the G erm antow n p ho ne n um ber, the p rocess
s ervers houl d ha ve been extr a cons ci ent i ous t o s erve the pr oper“ D r . W es tbr ook. ” T he tr i al
courtcorr ect l y not ed thatthe pr oces s s erverde cei ved D r . J es s e i nt o acc ept i ng s ervi ce, and Pl ai nt i f f s neverf i l ed a mot i on r eques t i ng an ext ens i on of t i m e. ¶27. W e ac know l edg e thatthi s case h as nu m er ous unf or tunat e and unus ual f act s that
con t ri bu t ed t o a l ack of t i m el y s ervi ce of

pr oces s . H ow ever , “[ t ] he bur den i s upon t he pl ai nt i f f s t o dem ons tr at e good caus e f orf ai l ur e t o t i m el y s erve pr oces s . ” Mon t go m ery , 910 So. 2d at547 ( ¶24) ( ci t i ng H olm es , 815 So. 2d at1185 ( ¶7) )
. T he tr i al courtcorr ect l y not ed thatA ppel l ant s f

ai l ed t o f i l e a m ot i on f

ora n e xt ens i on of

t i m e pr i ort o the 120- day dea dl i ne.

### 15

N o att em p t w as m ad e to s erv e p roc ess fo r th e first1 1 6 d ay s. P roc ess w as issu ed for D r. T oi kus , a nd s erved on D r . J es s e, on the 119th da y. T he pr oces s s erverha d i nf or m at i on t hat sh o u ld h av e a lert ed h im to the p o ssib il ity h e w as c o m m u n icati n g w ith a d if feren t “D r. W e stb ro o k .” B o u n d b y o u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew , w e c a n n o t sa y th e tria l c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in fin d in g a lac k o f g o o d c a u se o r e x c u sa b le n e g lec t. ¶28. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F L E A K E C O U N T Y IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL ARE AS S E S S E D T O T HE A PPE LL A N TS. G R I F F I S , P .J ., R O B E R T S A N D M A X W E L L , J J ., C O N C U R . I S H E E , J ., C O N C U R S I N P A R T W I T H O U T S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N . I R V I N G , P .J ., D ISS E N T S W IT H S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN IO N , JO IN E D B Y L E E , C . J. , F A IR AND J AM ES , J J . ; CAR LTON, J . , JOI NS I N PART. CAR LTON, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. I RV I NG , P . J . , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶29
. In m y j ud gm ent, the ci rcui t cou rt err ed i n fi nd i ng that C oll i ns fai l ed t o serve p rocess
o n D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s o f th e filing o f h e r c o m p lain t. T h e re fo re , I d iss e n t. E ven as s um i ng thatD r . Toi kus W es tbr ook w as nots erved w i thi n the 120 days , I al s o bel i eve thatthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n notf i ndi ng good caus e t o gr antan ext ens i on s o thatD r . T oi kus W es tbr ook coul d pr oper l y be s erved. C ons equent l y, under l yi ng thi s s econd i s s ue i s the fo llo w in g q u e stio n : W h e th e r g o o d -fa ith , b u t u n su c c e ss fu l, ac tio n s ta k e n b y a p lain tiff to
s erve a de f

endanti n the w ani ng days of the i ni t i al 120- day per i od al l ow ed by R ul e 4 ca n
cons t i tut e good ca us e f

ornots ervi ng the compl ai ntand s um m ons w i thi n the 120- day per i od
w h e n , d u rin g m o st o f th a t p e rio d , the p lain tiff fa iled to tak e a n y a c tio n to e ffe c tu a te pr oces s
— othert han obt ai ni ng t he summ ons fr om t he cl erk of the courtand pl aci ng a trus t ed

### 16

par al egal i n char ge of

gett i ng the s um m ons and compl ai ntt i m el y served. St at ed anotherw ay, d o e s th e fa ilu re o f a p lain tiff to tak e a n y a c tio n to w a rd e ffe c tu a tin g s e rv ice o f p ro c e ss u n til the w aning da ys of the 12 0-day pe ri od preven t , as a m at t er of l aw , a fi nd i ng of goo d cau se forno tserving process w i thin the 1 20 -day pe ri od , despit e the eff ortthatw as m ade in the las t f ew days of

the 120- day per i od? ¶30. C ol l i ns ’ s couns el l earned appr oxi m at el y f our days pr i or t o the expi r at i on of the 120- day per i od thathi s trus t ed and de pendabl e l egal as s i s t ant , due t o per s onal pr obl ems, had not ef f ectuat ed pr oces s on D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook. C ouns el s pr ang i nt o act i on i m m edi at el y,
c o n t a c t i n g a p r o c e s s s e r v e ri n Ha t t i e s b u r g , M i s s i s s i p p i
. Th e p r o c e s s s e r v e rwa s g i v e n t wo addr es s es f

orD r . T oi kus W es tbr ook: one i n Pi cayune , M i s s i s s i ppi , and one i n C art hage, M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he pr oces s s erveratt empt ed uns ucce s s f ul l y t o s erve D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook at b o th ad d resse s. W h at ha p p en ed n ex t is b est ex p lai n ed b y the c o ll o q u y b etw ee n C o ll ins’s
co u n sel an d the H att iesb u rg, M issi ssipp i pro ce ss se rve r: Q
. M r . K ei th, t el l Y ourH onorw hatef f or t s you w er e as ked t o m ake on behal f of m y l aw f

i r m t o serve pr oces s on D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook, i n or aro u n d A p ri l of th is ye ar? A
. A r ound A pr i l of

t hi s year , I w as cont act ed by yourl aw f i r m , L angs t on an d L an g ston , to loc ate a n d serv e p roc ess o n a T o iku s W estb roo k
. If I [ r e] cal l ther e w er e s ever al – – T H E C O U R T : L et’s refer to them as jun ior an d sen ior, so w e’ll b e su re

– – o r c a n w e n o t? M R
. L A N G S T O N : Y o u r H o n o r, it ’s no t j u n ior an d sen ior. T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t. W h a t is it?

### 17

M R
. L A N G S T O N : T h e fa th e r i s J e s s e W e s tb ro o k a n d th is g e n tle m a n is

T o ik u s W estb roo k
. S o there are n ’ttw o T o iku ses, I’m s orr y. T H E C O U R T : D r. Je ss e W e stb ro o k is th e fa th e r’s n a m e ; is th a t rig h t? M R
. L A N G ST O N : Y es , s i r . H e’ s a dent i s t , s o I under s t and. T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t. A
. I w a s g iv e n , I b e liev e , it w a s tw o a d d re ss e s in iti a lly . O n e w a s in Pi cayune and one w as i n C arthage, i f I’ m notm i s t aken. W e att empt ed t o serve process on D r. T oikus W estbrook atbo th o f tho se l ocati on s. H e w as atnei theraddr es s . I di d f urtherr es ear ch i n or dert o obt ai n a curr entaddr es s f

orD r . W es tbr ook. Q
. ( B y M r . L angs t on) W hatki nd of r es ear ch di d you do? A
. It’s c o m m o n ly re fe rre d to a s a lo c a to r o r a sk ip tra c e , an d it’s b a sic a lly rese arc h , co m p u ter resea rch that sh o w s rep o rt ed ad d resse s o f pe o p le thatr es i de ata gi ven addr es s . I t ’ s based on – – w e ca l l cr edi theade r i nf or m at i on. A nd w hen I di d a s ear ch by the nam e of T oikus W estb rook , usi ng his pastkn ow n ad dress es as a t em plat e or as a m e th o d to li n k a n e w e r a d d re ss , I d isc o v e re d a n a d d re ss fo r h im in G e rm a n to w n , T e n n e ss se e . I ob tain e d a p h o n e n u m b e r to th e a d d re ss in G e rm a n to w n , T e n n e ss e e , an d c a lled . I b e liev e I c a lled a n d lef t a m es s age f

orD r . T oi ku s W es tbr ook. Som eone c al l ed me back and u lti m a tely id e n tified h im se lf a s D r. T o iku s W e stb ro o k . I a d v ise d h im thatI had a de l i very for hi m . H e s ai d, you can – – I ’ m goi ng t o be l eavi ng m y hom e addr es s . Y ou can ha ve s om eone meetm e ata pi zza par l or– – Q
. A l l r i ght
. L etm e bac k up j us ta m om ent . I n t hatconver s at i on you had, th is w a s a re tu rn c a ll y o u g o t; i s th a t co rre c t? A
. Y es, si r. Q
. A nd the r et urn cal l er, w hen you ans w er ed the t el ephone, how di d he iden ti fy h im self? A
. T h e co n v ersa ti o n w as h ad , an d I t o ld h im that I ha d a d eli v ery for D r.

### 18 T oi kus W es tbr ook. Q
. W hatdi d he s ay or i gi nal l y? A
. H e – – w hen I t ol d hi m that , he s ai d, he’ s notavai l abl e. Q
. O kay. A
. A n d I sa id , w e ll, I’v e g o t to g iv e th is to h im . H e ’s g o t to sig n fo r it. A n d h e sa id , w e ll, w h a t is it ab o u t. A n d I to ld h im it w a s s o m e th in g to do w i th a phys i ci an. I ha d f ound i nf or m at i on thatD r . W es tbr ook w as a ff ilia te d w it h th e M a x im P h y s ic ia n s . N o w , in m y e x p e ri e n c e , I basi cal l y tol d h i m that I had a deli very regardi ng M axim P hy si ci ans. Q
. O k a y . A n d so w h a t d id h e sa y a fte r th a t? A. He s a i d , o h , th a t ’ s me . Yo u c a n b r i n g th a tt o me . An d I s a i d , o k a y . He s ai d, I – – that ’ s m e, as i n I am D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook. Q
. R ig h t. A
. A nd I s ai d, okay, I can ha ve s om eone ove ratyourhouse w i thi n a – – w i thi n the hour
. A nd he s t at ed, w el l , I ’ m l eavi ng, goi ng t o s om e pi zza p lace
. H e g av e m e the ad d ress h e a lso g av e m e h is cell p h o n e n u m b er. Itw as a tthatt i m e thatI c ont act ed m y M emphi s , Tennes s ee pr ocess s erver , w hi ch i s M r . G ary M urphr ee, and advi s ed hi m t hatw e – – I had a p ap er tha t nee d ed to b e se rve d on a D r. T o iku s W estb roo k , an d h e’d gi ven the i nf

or m at i on thathe w oul d m eethi m atthe s ai d pi zza pl ace . Q
. A l l r i ght
. So you as ked hi m t o then – – A
. I as ked hi m then t o go t o the pi zza pl ace and i denti fy D r . T oi kus W estbrook and serve h i m the p apers. Q
. A nd do yournot es i dent i f i ed [ s i c] on w hatday thats ervi ce a tthatpi zza r es t aur ant , w as acc om pl i s hed? A
. It w a s – – I b e liev e th a t’s g o in g to b e A p ril – – I m e a n , ex c u se m e , Ju ly

– – Q
. W e ll, a ll righ t.

### 19

M R
. L A N G ST O N : W e’ ve admi t t ed i ti nt o e vi dence , Y ourH onor . T he pr oof

of s ervi ce. T H E C O U R T : T h e A ffid a v it? M R
. L A N G ST O N : So t he dat e s peaks f ori t s el f , but– – T H E C O U R T : M ay I s ee the – – Shane, w oul d you hand i tt o m e. M R
. L A N G ST O N : A pr i l 13th. T H E C O U R T : T h is w o u ld b e E x h ib it 1 , I b e liev e . Is th is it? A
. Y es , s i r , Y ourH onor , I don’ tbel i eve I ’ ve s een thatA f f i davi t . B ut that ’ s notm i ne. T H E C O U R T : O kay. M R. LA N G STO N : A nd, Y ourH on or , f orthe r e c or d, tha ti s wi thi n t he 10 day per i od. T H E C O U R T : So not ed. Q
. ( By M r . La ng s t on ) A l l r i ght
. D i d you br i ng w i t h you t he comput er pr i nt outthatyou s erved f orD r . T oi kus W es tbr ook? A
. Y es , s i r , I di d. Q
. O kay. M R
. L A N G S T O N : A n d , Y o u r H o n o r, I d o n ’t h a v e a n e x tra c o p y o f it.

O ppos i t e couns el ’ s w el come t o s ee i t , butI ’ d l i ke t o of f er thati nt o evi dence
. T H E C O U R T : A ny obj ect i on? M R
. H A G W O O D : L e t m e s e e it f ir s t. I h a v e n ’t se e n it. M a y I lo o k a t it first? T H E C O U R T : O kay.

### 20

M R. H A G W O O D : If

w e’r e j ust go i ng t o i dent i f y i t , I ’ l l ha ve t o ask q u e stio n s a b o u t it
. TH E CO U RT : Y ou w anti tt o be marke d f ori de nt i f

i c a t i on? L e i t be m arked f ori dent i f i cat i on. ( E xhi bi tN o. 5 m arked f ori dent i f i cat i on onl y and att ache d her et o) Q
. (B y M r. L an g ston ) O k a y . M r. K e ith , w ill y o u id e n tify th e e x h ib it thatw as j us tm arked? A
. Y es, si r. Q
. W h a t is th a t? A
. T hi s i s a pr i nt -out o f t he r es ear ch thatI conduct ed i n or dert o f i nd a v a lid a d d re s s f

o r D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k . I h a v e a n a c c o u n t w ith L exis N exis
. If

yo u h ave an au tho ri zed pu rpose t o l oo k foran ad dress belonging to any part i cularpers on , i n thi s case the au tho ri zed p urpose w as Ser vi ce of

Legal Pr oces s . I tw i l l a l l ow you t o s ear ch by the name, S o c ia l S e c u ri ty n u m b e r, a d d re s s , e t c e te ra . A s I m e n tio n e d e a rl ie r, I t ook the addr es s es thatw e knew t o be val i d f orhi m , he w as j us tno l ongerther e, ora pa s ta ddr es s , a nd l i nked i tt o a a ddr es s thatc ame up as the t op r eport ed addr es s f ora curr entaddr es s f

orD r . W es tbr ook. Q
. W h a t ad d re ss is th a t? A
. 1666 N ew s om e D r i ve, G erm ant ow n, T ennes s ee. I tw as r eport ed as bei ng curr entf

r om 1992 t o A pr i l ’ 12. Q
. A pr i l 12, 2012? A
. I’ m sorry, A pri l of 201 2. Itdo esn’tgive speci fi c dates
. Q
. O kay. A
. O r days. Q
. A l l r i ght
. A nd i s thatthe addr es s thatyou cal l ed – –

### 21

A
. Iti s. Q
. – – and the man i dent i f i ed hi m s el f

as D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook? A
. Y es, si r. M R
. L A N G S T O N : N o furthe r qu esti o n s, Y o u r H o n o r. ¶31
. T he M em ph i s, T enn essee process server t est i fi ed as fol l ow s: Q
. A n d M r. M u rph ree , d o yo u reca ll in o r aro u n d A p ri l of 2 0 1 2 , y o u w ere as ked t o del i verpr oces s t o D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook? A
. Y es , I do. Q
. A nd t el l Y ourH onorw hatyou w er e as ked t o do, w ho as ked you? A
. D a v id K e ith ’s c o m p a n y c a lled m e a n d a sk e d m e to se rv e a p a p e r, to ld m e w here the per s on w oul d be, w hatt i m e the per s on w oul d be ther e. I gotthe pape r s i n hand, w entdow n t o the pl ace of – – Q
. W her e di d you go? A
. I tw as a pi zza pl ace . Q
. I ncr edi bl e Pi zza ? A. I n c r e d i b l e P i z z a wa s th e n a me o f i t . I twa s i n – – o f

f o f Ge r ma n t o wn R oad ther e i n M emphi s , T ennes s ee. Q
. A nd t el l Y ourH onorw hatyou di d af t eryou gotther e. A
. W hen I gotther e, I had one of the empl oy ees t o page . . . T oi kus W es tbr ook. A bl ack f

emal e l ady ca m e outand s he t ook m e bac k t o the – – ther e w as a l i t t l e r oom back ther e and ther e w as a gent l eman si t t i ng ther e. I as ked hi m i f

he w as T oi kus W es tbr ook; he sai d yes
. I had the p a p e rs in a b o x . I o p e n e d th e b o x , I h a n d e d h im th e p a p e rs, a n d I le ft. M R
. L A N G S T O N : N o further que st i on s. I n addi t i on t o pr ovi di ng t he t es t i m oni es s etforth above, both of the pr oces s s erver s gave

### 22

af f i davi t s cont ai ni ng essent i al l y the s ame i nf or m at i on as t es t i f

i ed t o, al though the l i ve t es t i m ony w as a bi tm or e expa ns i ve. ¶32. N ei therD r . J es s e W estbrook n or D r. T oi kus W es tbr ook t es t i f i ed conc erni ng w hat happene d dur i ng the ef f or tt o s erve D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook, choos i ng i ns t ead t o s ubm i tan
a ffid a v it. H o w e v e r, D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k ’s a ffid a v it w a s n o t sub m itted u n til a p p ro x im a tely tw o w eeks a ft er the h eari ng on the m oti on t o d i sm i ss had be en h el d. In D r. Jess e W es tbr ook’ s a f

f i davi t , he s t at ed thathi s home addr es s w as 1666 N ew s um D r i ve, G erm ant ow n, T enn essee, thathe w as s erved w i th pr oces s i n the i ns t antcas e on orabout A pr i l 14, 2012, and thathe had no pe r s onal know l edge of the ca s e otherthan hi s s on w as named T oi kus W es tbr ook. In D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook’ s af f i davi tfi l ed on N ovember26, 2012, he s t at ed t hathi s cur r entaddr es s had bee n 1542 D ebatt i s t a Pl ace , N ew O r l eans , L oui s i ana,
s i nce 2005; thathi s r es i dence t el ephone numberi n N ew O r l eans , L oui s i ana, had bee n 504- 365- 2153 s i nce 2005; thathi s f atheri s J es s e W es tbr ook a nd thathi s f ather ’ s a ddr es s i s 1666 N e w su m D riv e , G e rm a n to w n , T e n n e ss e e ; th a t h e h a d n e v e r b e e n se rv e d w ith p ro c e ss in th is
cas e. ¶33. B as ed upon thi s t es t i m ony and the af f i davi t s of D r s . J es s e and Toi kus W es tbr ook, the ci r cui tcourtf

ound: T he C our tf

i nds thatf

r om D ece m ber16, 2011, w hen the C om pl ai ntw as f i l ed, unt i l A pr i l 14, 2012, t he expi r at i on of the 120- day t i m e per i od, no appl i cat i on w as m a de t o thi s Cour ttha tgo od c a us e e xi s t e d f orthe Cour tt o g r a ntan ext ens i on of

t i m e t o s erve D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook, nor has any appl i cat i on been m ade f orext ens i on, t o t hi s dat e. O n A pr i l 12, 2012, M r . R obertD avi d K ei th, II , a process s erverhi r ed by

### 23

P l a i n t i f f s ’ c o u n s e l , b e g a n th e p r o c e s s o f s e r v i n g Dr
. To i k u s W e s tb r o o k
. On Ap r i l 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 , th e p r o c e s s s e r v e re ma i l e d i n f o r ma t i o n t o t h e La n g s t o n f i r m, Pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el , det ai l i ng thatD r . T oi kus W es tbr ook m ay have m or e than on e ph ysi cal add res s i ncludi ng G erm an tow n, T enn essee, and N ew O rl eans, L oui s i ana, and s peci f

i cal l y no t ed t hat , “I thi nk the cha nces of l ocat i ng and s ervi ng hi m t oday ar e very s l i m . ” I tfurtherappear s t hataf t err ece i vi ng not i ce f r om t he pr oc e s s s e r ve rtha t“ the c ha nc e s of l oc a t i ng a nd s e r vi ng D r . Toi kus W es tbr ook t oday ar e very s l i m , ” Pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o f i l e a mot i on f

orext ens i on of t i m e t o s erve D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook. A s poi nt ed outby Pl ai nt i f f s ’ c ouns el dur i ng the hea r i ng of thi s m att er , he had t asked a form er l egal as si st ant, w ho w as exper i enci ng s om e per s onal pr ob l em s, w i th m aki ng s ur e thatpr oces s w as s erved w i thi n the one hundr ed tw enty ( 120) day per i od. Pl ai nt i f

f ar gued t hatthey ac t ed i n good f ai th dur i ng the one hu nd red tw enty ( 12 0) service peri od and b el i eved that they had served process on D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook unt i l they l earned otherw i s e. T his C ou rtfi nd s that once p rocess server, D avy K ei th, had l ocated an ad dress for D r. T o iku s W estb roo k in G erm an tow n , T en n esse e, he co n tacted G ary M u rph ree , a p roc ess s erv er in G erm an tow n , T en n esse e, t o serv e p roc ess on D r. T oi kus W es tbr ook. M r . K ei th cal l ed D r . J es s e W es tbr ook and l ef ta mess age. T h e re a fte r, D r. Je ss e W e stb ro o k re tu rn e d M r. K e ith ’s c a ll an d to ld M r. K e ith thatD r . Toi kus W es tbr ook w as “ nota vai l abl e. ” M r . K ei th expl ai ned thathe h ad a d el i very for D r. T oikus W estbrook fr om D r. T oikus W estbrook ’s empl oyer , M axi m Phys i ci ans . A l though the di al ogue betw een M r . M urphr ee and D r . J es s e W es tbr ook atthe pi zza par l orw her e they meti s di s put ed, P l ai nt i f f s as s ertthatD r . J es s e W es tbr ook t ol d hi m he w as D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook. H ow ever , on cr os s - exami nat i on, M r . M urphree acknow l edged thatthei rs tr at egy w as a s ubt er f uge des i gned t o dece i ve D r . J es s e W es tbr ook to ind u ce h im to ap p ea r at th e p izza p arlor to re c e iv e th e su m m o n s. In addi t i on, D r . J es s e W es tbr ook t es t i f i ed by af f i davi tthatM r . M um phr ee a s ked him i f he w as “D r. W estbrook , ” w ho , of course, he is
. A tt hi s t i m e, M r . M urphr ee then ser ved D r . J es s e W es tbr ook w i th the su m m o n s, w h ich w a s e n c lo se d in a b o x , an d lef t. ¶34. I ti s cl eart o m e thatthe ci r cui tcourti n m aki ng i t s f i ndi ngs of

f actover l ooked key p iece s o f ev iden ce an d m isqu o ted o thers. F ir st, the re is n o e v iden ce in th is r ec o rd to su p p o rt th e c irc u it co u rt’s f

in d in g th a t D r. Je ss e W e stb ro o k re tu rn e d D a v y ’s c a ll. A c c o rd in g to

### 24

D a v y ’s te stim o n y , h e c a lle d th e te lep h o n e n u m b e r fo r th e G e rm a n to w n a d d re ss a n d lef t a
m essa g e fo r D r . Toi kus W es t br ook
. “Som eone ca l l ed back a nd u lti m a tely ide n tif iedh im se lf
as D r . Toi kus W

es t br ook
. ” ( emphasi s added)
. N ei therD r . J es s e W es tbr ook’ s norD r . T oi kus W estb roo k ’s affi d av itad d resse s th is co n v ersa ti o n . T h ere fore , there is no b asis in this reco rd fo r th e tria l co u rt’s f

in d in g th a t D r. Je ss e W e stb ro o k re tu rn e d the c a ll
. A cce pt i ng as a f act thatD r . T oi kus W es tbook does notl i ve at , a nd has noteverl i ved at , 1666 N ew s um D r i ve, G erm ant ow n, T ennes s ee, does notpr ove thathe w as notpr es entatthataddr es s w hen ( 1) t he t el ephone c al l w as m ade, ( 2) the t el ephone c al l w as r eturned, ( 3) and the s um m ons and
c o m p lain t w e re se rv e d a t th e p izz a es tab lish m e n t. T h e re is no e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd a s to D r. T o ik u s W e s tb ro o k ’s w h e re a b o u ts o n A p ri l 1 3 , 2 0 1 2
. ¶35. T he ci r cui tc our ta l s o f ound thatthe T enn essee process ser ver ser ved D r. Jess e W e stb ro o k o n A p ril 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 . A g a in , the re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt th is fi n d ing
. W h il e itis no t dispu ted th at so m eo n e w as se rve d at th e p izza estab li sh m en t, there i s no evi dence i n thi s r ecor d t o s uppor tthe ci r cui tcourt ’ s f i ndi ng thatthe pr oces s s erver
serv ed D r. Jess e W estb roo k a t th e P izza e stab li sh m en t. N eith er D r. Je sse W estb roo k n o r D r. T oi kus W es tbr ook, i n hi s af f i davi t , i dent i f

i es the pl ace w her e D r . J es se W estbr ook w as al l egedl y s erved w i th pr oces s . T he onl y evi dence i n the r ecor d a s t o w her e any s ervi ce t ook pl ace and w ho w as served came fr om the Tennes s ee pr oces s s erver , w ho, as s t at ed, t es t i f i ed as f oll ow s: W hen I gotther e, I had one of the empl oyees t o page . . . T oi kus W es tbr ook. A b lac k fe m a le la d y c a m e o u t an d sh e to o k m e b a c k to th e – – th e re w a s a little ro o m b a c k th e re a n d th e re w a s a g e n tle m a n sit tin g th e re . I as ked hi m i

f he w as

### 25

Toi kus W e s t br oo k; he s ai d “y e s . ” I ha d the pape r s i n a box. I opened the box, I h a n d e d h im th e p a p e rs, a n d I le ft. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶36. Fi nal l y, as not ed, the ci r cui tcourtf ound: H ow ever, on cr os s - exami nat i on, M r . M urphr ee a cknow l edged th a t th e ir s tr at egy w as a s ubt er

f uge des igned t o decei ve D r . Jes s e W es t br ook to i nduce him t o a pp ear at the p izza parl or t o recei ve the sum m on s. In a dd it ion, D r. Jes s e W es t br ook t es t i

f i ed by af f i davi tthatMr . Mum

phr ee as ked hi m i

f he w as “D r . W es t br ook , ” w ho , of course, he is
. (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). I fin d n o th in g in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt th is fin d in g . F irst, w h y w o u ld C ol l i ns ’ s couns el w antt o i nduce D r . J es s e W es tbr ook t o appea ratthe pi zza par l ort o r ece i ve t he sum m on s ? A ny s um m ons r ece i ved ther e by D r . J es s e W es tbr ook w oul d nothave
e ffe c tu a ted se rv ice o n D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k
. S e c o n d , w ith d u e res p e c t t o th e c irc u it co u rt, D r. Jess e W estb roo k d id n o t t esti fy b y affidav itthat M r. M u m p h ree ask ed him i f he w as D r. W e stb ro o k . A s n o ted , n e ith e r D r. Je ss e n o r D r T o ik u s W e stb ro o k s d e sc rib e s in h is a ffid a v it
w h a t h a p p e n e d a t th e p izz a e sta b lish m e n t. ¶37. Forthe r eas ons p res ented, I fi nd the ci rcui tco urt ’ s f i ndi ng— thatthe T ennes s ee pr oces s s ervers erved D r . J es s e W es tbr ook, notD r . T oi kus W es tbr ook— i s notsupport ed by
su b stan ti al ev iden ce . T h ere fore , I w o u ld rev erse an d ren d er the jud g m en t of th e c ir cu itco u rt and r emand t hi s cas e f

orf ur therpr ocee di ngs . A l t ernat i vel y, I w oul d f i nd thatC ol l i ns pr oved g o o d c a u se fo r a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to se rv e D r. T o ik u s W e stb ro o k , as su m in g h e w a s n o t in f acts erved on A pr i l 13, 2012. D es pi t e the ci r cui tcourt ’ s f i ndi ng thatC ol l i ns neverf i l ed a
m o ti o n for e x tens ion o f t im e, i t i s clea r fr o m the re co rd th at C o ll ins a sk ed for su ch reli ef,

### 26

al though admi t t edl y notvi a a m ot i on. I n C ol l i ns ’ s re but t al t o D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook’ s br i ef in su p p o rt o f h is m o tio n to d ism iss , C o lli n s c o n c lu d e d : “P lain tiffs th e re fo re re sp e c tfu lly
r eques tthi s courtt o deny def endant s [ ’ ] m ot i on t o di s m i s s and gr antt o pl ai nt i f f s an ext ens i on of t i m e t o s erve the D ef

endant , D r . T oi kus W es tbr ook. ” Such an ext ens i on coul d have a nd sh o u ld ha v e b ee n gran ted u n d er th e a u th o rity o f Fo s s v . Wi l l i a ms , 99 3 S o. 2d 37 8 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 ). L E E , C .J ., F A I R A N D J A M E S , J J ., J O I N T H I S O P I N I O N . C A R L T O N , J ., J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.