### Funche s’ s nameappe ar s in there cord with two di ff er ent s pel lings, “Func hes ” and 1 

### “Func hes s. ” For

cons is te ncy, we us e “ Funche s, ” whi ch i s the name th at appe ar s on the comp laint. I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - I A- 0 0 3 4 3 - S CT COP I AH C OUNT Y S CHOOL DI S T RICT AN D KENNETH FUNCH

ES
v. CHARLESBUCKNER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 05/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COP I AH COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: J OSEPH W ALTER G I LL RE BE CC A B . CO W AN AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : RA M E L L E M AR CO T T ON NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 05/ 19/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C har l es B ucknerf i l ed a pe r s on al -i njur y act i on ag ai ns tthe C opi ah C ounty School D istric t an d K e n n e th F u n c h e s. B u c k n e r fa iled to s e rv e p ro c e ss o n e ith e r d e fe n d a n t w ith in 1 the 120- day per i od pr ovi ded by M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 4( h)
. A f t erthe runni ng of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons , B ucknerm oved f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e t o ef

f ects ervi ce of p ro c e ss . T h e trial c o u rt g ra n te d th e m o tio n , allo w in g B u c k n e r a n a d d iti o n a l 1 2 0 d a y s to

### 2

ef f ects ervi ce. H ow ever , Bucknerf ai l ed t o s erve ei therdef endantunt i l af

t erthe addi t i onal 120- day per i od had expi r ed. T he tr i al courtden i ed t he def endant s ’ m ot i on t o s etas i de the
o rd e r g ra n tin g th e e x te n s io n o f t im e a n d fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶ 2 . T h is C o u rt g ra n ted the d e fe n d a n ts’ p e tit io n fo r a n in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. W e fin d th a t, beca us e B ucknerf

ai l ed t o s how good cause orexcus abl e negl ectf orthe f ai l ur e t o ef

f ect
s ervi ce w i thi n the t i m e pr ovi ded by R ul e 4( h) , t he t r i al cour tabuse d i t s di s cr et i on by denyi ng the def end ant s ’ m ot i on t o s etas i de the or dergr ant i ng an ext ens i on of t i m e. B eca us e the li m it ati o n s p eriod h ad ex p ir ed p ri o r t o the o rde r gra n ti n g the e x ten sio n o f ti m e, sum m ary ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te . W e re v e rs e a n d re n d e r. FACTS ¶3. O n O ct ober 30, 2007, B uckner f i l ed a compl ai nt against t he C opi ah C ounty School D i s tr i ct , Funches , and J ohn and J ane D oes 1- 10. B uckneral l eged that , on D ece m ber15, 20 06 , F unches , a s chool
- bus dr i ver , had f ai l ed t o s t op the bus atan i nt er s ect i on, and i thad col l i ded w i th B uckner ’ s vehi cl e, caus i ng dam ages . B ucknerhad sum m ons es i s s ued f oreac h def endanton O ct ober30, 2007. H ow ever , w i thi n 120 days a f t erthe compl ai ntha d be en f i l ed, Bu c k n e rh a d n e i th e rs e r v e d p r o c e s s o n t h e d e f e n d a n t s , n o rh a d h e r e q u e s t e d a d d i t i o n a l t i me t o ef f ects ervi ce. ¶4. M or e t han one yearaf t ert he com pl ai nthad been f i l ed, on N ovember19, 2008, the tr i al
courti s s ued a not i ce of

s t atus he ar i ng r equi r i ng Buckner ’ s c ouns el t o a ppearon J anuary 12, 2 0 0 9 . P rio r to th e sta tu s h e a rin g , B u c k n e r file d a n a p p lica tio n fo r a c ler k ’s e n try o f d e fa u lt agai ns tthe def

endant s , al ong w i th an af f i davi tof couns el at t est i ng t hatthe def endant s had

### 3

been s erved w i th the s um m ons es and com pl ai nton O ct ober30, 2007. H ow ever , i n f act , the d e fe n d a n ts h a d n o t b e e n s e rv e d
. ¶5. T he r ecor d does not i ncl ude a tr ans cr i pt of the s t atus hear i ng. B ut at the l at erhear i ng on the def

endant s ’ di s pos i t i ve m ot i on, B uckner ’ s couns el r emi nded the courtof w hathad
occurr ed atthe s t atus hear i ng. B uckner ’ s counse l st at ed t hatservi ce had notoccurr ed dur i ng the i ni t i al , 120- day per i od, beca us e t he pr oces s serverer r oneous l y had i nf or m ed couns el the def endant s had been s erved. H ow ever , w hen couns el chec ked hi s cas e f i l e pr i ort o the s t atus hear i ng, he di s cover ed thatno ans w erhad bee n f i l ed. T hen, he che cked the courtf i l e and
r eal i zed thatthe def

endant s ha d notbe en s erved. H e i m m edi at el y f i l ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw the a p p li ca ti o n for d efa u lt
. B u ck n er’s co u n sel stat ed that, at th e status h ea ri n g , the tri al co u rt
o ra lly h a d g ra n te d h is m o tio n fo r a n e x te n s io n o f t im e to s e rv e th e d e fe n d a n ts . ¶6 . T w o l et t er s s ubm i t t e d w i th the de f e nd a nt s ’ di s po s i t i ve mot i on s he d f urthe r l i gh ton ho w B uck ner di scovered t he fai l ure of s ervi ce. A l et t er dated J anu ary 15, 200 9, f rom defense
couns el t o B uckner ’ s couns el comm uni cat ed that , on the s ame day, defense counsel had di s cover ed the exi s t ence of the l aw s ui tand thatthe courtf i l e r ef l ect ed the def

endant s had not b e e n se rv e d . In a Ja n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , res p o n se lette r, B u c k n e r’s c o u n s e l ac k n o w led g e d th a t,
w hen he ha d fi l ed t he appl i cat i on forent ry of def aul t , he had bel i eved the def endant s had been
s erved. ¶7. T he r ecor d r ef

l ect s that , on February 3, 2009, the tr i al court ent er ed an or dergr ant i ng B uck ner’ s or e t enus m ot i on f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e t o s erve the d efe ndant s , and gi vi ng B uckneran addi t i onal 120 days t o e f f ects ervi ce of

pr oces s , orunt i l J une 2, 2009. T he or der

### 4

d id n o t s ta te w h e th e r B u c k n e r h a d s h o w n g o o d c a u s e fo r t h e fa ilu r e t o e f f e c t s e rv ic e . A not at i on on the docketon February 3, 2009, s t at es “O r der/ C opy R amel L . C ot t on ( A ddi t i onal 1 2 0 d a y s to s e rv e th e d e fe n d a n ts).” H o w e v e r, B u c k n e r d id n o t se rv e th e sc h o o l d istric t w ith pr oces s unt i l J une 4, 2009. H e s erved Funches on J une 5, 2009. ¶8. C opi ah C ounty School D i s tr i ct ans w er ed on J une 17, 2009, and Funches ans w er ed on J ul y 2, 2009. I n thei rans w er s , the def endant s ass ert ed t hat , becaus e B ucknerhad s erved them af t erthe expi r at i on of the t i m e pr ovi ded by R ul e 4( h) , the compl ai ntw as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al
w ith p re ju d ice u n d e r M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(4 ),(5 ), o r (6 ). C o p iah C o u n ty School D i s tr i ctal s o f

i l ed a mot i on t o s etas i de the or dergr ant i ng ext ens i on of t i m e and f

or s um m ar y j udgment
. I ta r gu e d tha tthe tr i a l c ou r tha d a bu s e d i t s di s c r e t i on by gr a nt i ng B u ck n er a n ex tens ion of t im e, b ec au se B u ck n er h ad fail ed to sh o w g o o d ca u se fo r his fail u re t o ef f ects ervi ce w i thi n the i ni t i al , 120- day per i od. C opi ah C ounty School D i s tr i ctf ur ther
a ss e rte d th a t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s a p p lica b le to B u c k n e r’ s c la im s h a d e x p ir e d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). F u n c h e s fi le d a jo in d e r i n th e s c h o o l d is tr ic t’ s m o tio n . ¶9. B ucknerf

i l ed a respon se t o t he m oti on to setasi de t he ext ens i on of t i m e and f

or su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n Ju ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 . B u c k n e r a ss e rte d th a t, at th e d ire c tio n o f th e c o u rt, h is
c o u n s e l h a d p r e p a r e d a n d d e l i v e r e d t o th e c o u r ta n o r d e rg r a n t i n g th e e x t e n s i o n o f t i me . He
s t at ed that , des pi t e due di l i gence , the dat e hi s couns el fi r s thad re cei ved a c opy of the s i gned
o rd e r b y fac sim ile w a s Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 9 . In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, he su b m itt e d th e a ffid a v it
o f his co u n sel’s l eg al assist an t, B ren d a Jo rda n . Jo rda n stat ed that sh e h ad ca ll ed the c lerk’s

### 5

o ffi ce o n n u m ero u s o cc asio n s reg ard ing the ord er. B u ck n er st ated th at th e d efe n d an ts w ere serv ed im m ed iat ely a ft er c o u n sel h ad rec eive d the o rde r. ¶10. A tthe hea r i ng on N ovember1, 2009, J or dan t es t i f i ed that , s oon af

t ers he bega n cal l i ng the cl erk’ s of

f i ce, s om eone a tthe cl erk’ s of f i ce ha d i nf

or m ed herthatthe order had been
s i gned and e nt er ed on the docke t , and had pr om i s ed t o f ax a c opy t o J or dan. H ow ever , J or dan
neverr ece i ved the f

axed c opy. J or dan admi t t ed thats he had i nf or m ed herempl oyerthatthe
or derhad bee n s i gned, buthe di d notask hert o fi nd outt he dat e i thad been si gned. O vert he nextf ew m onths, she m ade s ever al r eques t s f ora copy of

the or der , and f

i nal l y r ece i ved a f axed c opy on J une 4, 2009, tw o days af t erthe extensi on of t i m e gr ant ed i n the or derhad
e x p ir e d
. ¶1 1 . O n F eb rua ry 8 , 2 0 1 0 , the tr ial co u rt e n tered an o rde r d en y ing the m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm ent . T he or ders t at ed, “af t erconducti ng a hear i ng and ac cept i ng l i ve t es t i m ony [ the
court ] f i nds thatthe evi dence s at i s f i es the s t andar ds r equi r ed f ora f i ndi ng of excus abl e negl ect and good ca us e and Pl ai nt i f f’ s servi ce of

pr oces s underthe ci r cumst ance s s houl d be ac cept ed
as prope r . ” O n M ar ch 1, 2010, Funches and C opi ah C ounty School D i s tr i ctf i l ed a pe t i t i on forint erl ocut ory appea l and f ors t ay of

tr i al courtpr ocee di ngs . T hi s C our tgr ant ed the pet i t i on. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶12. W e r evi ew a tr i al c our t ’ s de ci s i on o n w hethert o set asi de an order grant i ng an e x te n s io n o f t im e fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Jo hns on v. Thom as , 9 8 2 S o . 2d 40 5, 40 9 (M i ss. 2008)
. “Thi s C our tl eave s t o the di s cr et i on of the tr i al courtthe fi ndi ng of f acton t he

### 6

e x is te n c e o f g o o d c a u s e o r e x c u s a b le n e g le c t f o r d e la y in s e rv in g p ro c e s s u n d e r R u le 4 (h ).” L on g v. Mem ’l

Hosp. at G u l

fport , 969 So. 2d 35, 38 ( M i s s . 2007)
. W e w i l l r ever s e i f the tr i al
c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n w a s a b u s e d o r i ts d e c is io n w a s n o t s u p p o rt e d b y su b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d. W e appl y de novo r evi ew t o the gr antordeni al o f a m oti on t o di s m i s s ora mot i on f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. P rice v. Clark , 2 1 S o . 3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ABUS ED I TS DI S CRE TI ON BY DEN YI NG THE M OTI ON TO SET A SI DE I TS OR DER THA T GR AN TED BU CK NER AN AD DI TI ON AL 12 0 DA YS TO SERVE TH E DEFEND AN TS W I TH PRO CESS AN D FO R SUM M AR Y J UD GM ENT. ¶13 . M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 4( h) st at es: Sum m ons: T i m e L i m i t f or Servi ce. I f

a s ervi ce of

t he summ ons and compl ai nt i s notm ade upon a def

endantw i thi n 120 days a f t erthe f i l i ng of the compl ai nt a nd the pa r ty o n whos e be ha l f s uc h s e r vi c e w a s r e qu i r e d c a nn ots ho w good caus e w hy s uch s ervi ce w as notm ade w i thi n thatp eri od, the ac t i on s hal l be di s m i s s ed as t o thatde f

endantw i thoutpr ej udi ce upon the court ’ s ow n i ni t i at i ve w i th not i ce t o s uch party orupon m ot i on. M . R . C . P . 4 (h ). P u rsua n t t o R u le 4(h ), the tri al co u rtw as re q u ir ed to d ism iss B u ck n er’s
c o m p la in t u n le s s h e s h o w e d g o o d c a u s e w h y s e rv ic e w a s n o t m a d e w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s . See Long , 969 So. 2d at39. “The rul e has al s o been i nt erpr et ed t o r equi r e that , i f the def endant is n o t se rv e d w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s, th e p lain tiff m u st e ith e r re file th e co m p lain t b e fo re th e sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons e nds ors how good caus e; otherw i s e, di s m i s s al i s pr oper . ” W ebs terv. W

ebs ter , 834 So. 2d 26, 28 ( M i s s . 200 2) ( ci t i ng W atte rs v. Str i

pl ing , 67 5 S o. 2d 12 42 , 12 44 (M i ss. 1 9 9 6 ))
. ¶14 . T he plai nti ff bears the bu rden t o dem on strat e go od cause for a fai l ure t o serve p rocess

### 7

in a tim e ly m a n n e r. Mont gom er y v. Sm ithkline B eec ham Cor p. , 91 0 S o. 2d 54 1, 54 7 (M i ss. 2005) ( ci t i ng Hol

m e s v. Coast

T r ansit Auth. , 8 1 5 So . 2 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 4 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 2 ) )
. “ To
es t abl i s h ‘ good c aus e’ the pl ai nt i f f mustde m ons tr at e atl eas ta s much as w oul d be r equ i r ed t o s how excusabl e negl ect , ‘ as t o w hi ch s i m pl e i nadvert ence orm i s t ake of couns el or i gnor ance of the rul es us ual l y does nots uf f i ce. ’ ” W ebs ter , 834 So. 2d at28 ( ci t i ng P eters v. U nited States , 9 F. 3d 344, 345 ( 5th C i r . 1993))
. T o m eetthe bur den of pr oof of good caus e, th e p la in tif

f m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t a d ilig e n t e ff o rt w a s m a d e to e ff

e c t tim e ly s e rv ic e . Foss v. Wil lia ms , 993 So. 2d 378, 379 ( M i s s . 2008). T he pl ai nt i f f m us ts how m or e than that
s e rv ic e fa ile d d u e to “ s im p le in a d v e r te n c e o rm is ta k e o f c o u n s e l o r i g n o ra n c e o f t h e ru le s .” W atters , 6 7 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 3 . ¶ 1 5 . T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t g o o d c a u se is lik e ly (b u t n o t a lw a y s) to b e fo u n d w h e n th e p lain tiff’s fa ilu re to compl et e s ervi ce i n t i m el y f as hi on i s a r es ul tof

the conduc tof a thi r d per s on, typi cal l y the pr oces s s erver , the def endanthas evade d s ervi ce o f pr oces s or e n g a g e d in m isle a d in g c o n d u c t, th e p lain tiff h a s a c ted d ili g e n tly in try in g to ef f ects ervi ce, orther e ar e und ers t andabl e mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s , orthe p la in tif f i s p ro c e e d in g p ro s e o r i n fo rm a p a u p e ri s . Hol m es , 8 1 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 8 6 (q u o ti n g 4 B C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A rt h u r R . M ille r, Feder al P r act i ce and Proc edur e § 1137, at342 ( 3d ed. 2000) )
. Forexampl e, i n Foss , the def endant
w a s s e rv e d o n e d a y a ft e r t h e 1 2 0 -d a y p e ri o d h a d e x p ir e d
. Foss, 9 93 S o. 2d at379. T he plai nti ff’ s couns el ar gued that , al though he had a s s oci at ed l ocal couns el w ho had bee n
r es pons i bl e f

oref f ect i ng servi ce, l ocal couns el had negl ect ed t o s erve the def endant s , and
c o u n s e l d id n o t d is c o v e r th e o m is s io n u n til 1 1 8 d a y s a ft e r t h e c o m p la in t h a d b e e n fi le d
. I d.

### 8

C ouns el i m m edi at el y s oughtt o have the def endant s served, and l ocal couns el l at erw i thdr ew fr o m th e c a s e . I

d. T h e tr ia l c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e p la in tif f h a d d e m o n s tr a te d g o o d c a u s e . I d. T hi s C our thel d the rul i ng w as w i thi n the tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i on, be caus e the f ai l ur e of s ervi ce
w as caus ed by the i nact i on of anot heratt orney w ho l at erhad w i thdr aw n f r om the ca s e, and
c o u n s e l h a d ta k e n im m e d ia te a c tio n to e ff e c t s e r v ic e u p o n d is c o v e ri n g th e p ro b le m . I d. at 379- 80. ¶ 1 6 . H o w e v e r, p la c in g b la m e u p o n a p ro c e s s s e rv e r, w ith o u t m o re , is in su ffic ien t to demonstr at e good ca us e. T he pl ai nt i f f mustmake a s how i ng of di l i gence i n s eeki ng t o ef f ect
s e rv ic e . I

d. at379. I n He a r d

v. R e my , 937 So. 2d 939, 940 ( M i s s . 2006), t he pl ai nt i f f , af t er th e e x p ira tio n o f th e 1 2 0 -d a y p e rio d , m o v e d fo r a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to se rv e p ro c e ss . A s in thi s cas e, the tr i al courtgr ant ed the pl ai nt i f f’ s r eques t , butw i thoutm aki ng a fi ndi ng of good
c a u s e . I d. T he pl ai nt i f

f achi eved s ervi ce w i thi n t he addi t i onal si xty days gr ant ed by t he tr i al
c o u rt . I d. T h e d e f

e n d a n t a n s w e re d a n d ra is e d th e d e fe n s e o f u n tim e ly s e rv ic e . I d. at941. A ft er a h ea ri n g , the tri al co u rtfou n d that the p lai n ti ff h ad n o t sho w n g o o d ca u se fo r th e fa il u re to s e rv e p ro c e s s w ith in th e o ri g in a l 1 2 0 -d a y p e ri o d
. I d. ¶ 1 7 . O n a p p e a l, th is C o u rt re v iew e d th e e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e re a so n fo r th e fa ilu re to
e ff e c t s e rv ic e . I

d. at943- 44. T he plai nt i f f had gi ven no expl anat i on otherthan thatthe process server, an em ployee o f hercou nsel ’s l aw fi rm , had neg l ect ed to f oll ow i nst ruct i on s. I d. a t 9 4 3 . T h e re c o rd sh o w e d th a t se rv ic e w a s n o t a tte m p te d w ith in th e 1 2 0 -d a y p e ri o d
. I d. at944. T he C our ta t tr i but ed the f ai l ur e of s ervi ce t o a pos s i bl e “l ack of comm uni cat i on and f ol l ow - up w i thi n the of

f i ces of [ the pl ai nt i f

f’ s ] couns el
. ” I

d. W e h e ld th a t th e trial c o u rt, i n

### 9

f i ndi ng the pl ai nt i f

f had nots how n g ood caus e, w as w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on, beca us e “[ t ] he
c o n t i n u i n g f

a i l u r e t o a t t e mp ts e r v i c e f o rf o u rmo n th s , wi th o u ta d e q u a t e e x p l a n a t i o n , s h o ws a l ack of di l i gence beyond exc us abl e negl ect . ” I d . ¶18. I n I

n re Holt

z m an , 823 So. 2d 1180, 1181 (M i ss. 2002), appr oxi m at el y fi ve mont hs af t erthe pl ai nt i f

f had mi s s ed the 120- day dea dl i ne, s he f i l ed a mot i on f

oran ext ens i on of t i m e. A tthe hea ri ng , t he pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el as s ert ed thatthe r eas on f orthe f ai l ur e of s ervi ce w as thata new l y hi r ed f

i l e cl erk had mi s f

i l ed the com pl ai ntand sum m ons , and the mi s t ake ha d not b e e n d is c o v e re d u n til a ro u tin e fi le c h e c k
. I d. at 1181- 82. T hi s C our taf f i r m ed the tr i al
court ’ s f i ndi ng thatthe pl ai nt i f

f had nots how n good caus e. T he C our ts t at ed that , underthe fact s pres ented, “[ t ] here w as noteven a c olor able ar gu m ent that f ai l ure t o ti m el y serve process
w as anything o ther than i nadvert ence orm i s t ake. ” I d. a t 1 1 8 4 . A n d “ o rd in a ry a tten tio n to [ couns el ’ s ] cas el oad w oul d have l ed [ hi m ] t o not i ce thathe had r ece i ved no ans w er. . . and t o chec k hi s cas e f

i l e. ” I d. at1183. ¶19. B ucknerar gues that , be caus e the s t atus he ar i ng w as nottr ans cr i bed, thi s C our t cannot know the gr ounds upon w hi ch the tr i al c our tgr ant ed the ext ens i on of t i m e. W e dis agree , beca us e atthe hea r i ng on t he def endant s ’ di s pos i t i ve mot i on, B uckner ’ s c ouns el r epea t ed the gr ou nd s , a nd the y w e r e a c c e pt e d by the tr i a l c ou r ta s a n a c c ur a t e d e s c r i pt i on of w hathad
occurr ed atthe s t atus hear i ng. Fur ther , i ti s m ani f es tfr om t he af

f i davi tof B uckner ’ s couns el and the appl i cat i on f

orent ry of def

aul tthatB uckner ’ s couns el bel i eved the def endant s had b e e n se rv e d w ith p ro c e ss a n d th e y h a d b e e n b ro u g h t u n d e r th e ju risd ictio n o f th e trial c o u rt. ¶ 2 0 . W e fin d tha t th e ev id e n c e co n c e rn in g B u c k n e r’s failu re to s e rv e th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith in

### 10

the 120- day per i od i s compar abl e t o t hati n Heard and Holt z m an . B uckner ’ s couns el as s er t ed thathe had r el i ed upon the pr ocess s erver ’ s as s ert i on thatthe def endant s had bee n s erved. C o u n se l’s b e lief th a t se rv ice h a d b e e n a c h iev e d w a s e v id e n c e d b y h is filin g o f a n a ffid a v it t o that effec t w ith an ap p li ca ti o n for en try of d efa u ltw h en the d efe n d an ts ha d fail ed to an sw er. H o w ev er, a m o re a tt en ti v e re v iew o f th e fil e w o u ld h av e info rm ed co u n sel th at, b ec au se th ere
w as no r eturn of

s ervi ce f orthe def

endant s , the r eas on they had f ai l ed t o ans w erw as thatt hey had notbeen s erved w i th pr oces s . E vi dent l y, Buckner ’ s couns el di d notchec k f ora r etur n of
s ervi ce unt i l af

t erthe s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed, af t erthe tr i al courthad s eta dat e f or a s t atus hear i ng, af

t erhe had f

i l ed an appl i cat i on f

orentry of

def aul t , and af

t eroppos i ng couns el , upon di s cover i ng the l aw s ui t , had not i f i ed hi m thatthei rcl i ent s neverhad bee n s erved. I n Heard , the C our tf ound thatcouns el ’ s l ack of comm uni cat i on and f

ol l ow - up c o n c e rn in g se rv ic e c o n s titu te d m is ta k e o r in a d v e rt e n c e . Heard , 937 So. 2d at944. T he conductati s s ue her e l i kew i s e mani f est ed a lack o f

di l i gence and amount s t o m i s t ake or i nadvert ence . W e f

i nd t hatthe tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r ef us i ng t o s etas i de the ext ens i on of

t i m e, beca us e B ucknerdi d notpr es ents ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor ta f i ndi ng o f g o o d c a u s e fo r t h e fa ilu re to s e rv e th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith in th e 1 2 0 -d a y p e ri o d
. ¶2 1 . A d d it ion all y , w e n o te that B u ck n er d id n o t fi le a m o ti o n for ex tens ion o f ti m e b efo re the 120- day per i od had el aps ed. W hi l e ther e i s no actual r equi r eme ntthata mot i on f or add i t i on al t i m e be fi l ed, “a plai nti ff w ho – p ri or t o ex p ir ati on of the servi ce peri od – fi l es a
m ot i on r epr es ent i ng thathe ors he has be en unabl e t o s erve pr oces s , w i l l more l i kel y s ucce ed i n dem ons tr at i ng di l i gence t han a pl ai nt i f f w ho does nothi ng. ” Mon t go m ery , 910 So. 2d at

### 11

546. H avi ng found thatt he t r i al cour tabuse d i t s di s cr et i on by re f us i ng t o s etas i de the or der gr ant i ng an ext ens i on of t i m e, w e do notaddre s s t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng of exc us abl e negl ect and good ca us e f

orB uckner ’ s f

ai l ur e t o s erve the def

endant s w i t hi n the 120- day ext ens i on p e ri o d
. ¶22. “F i l i ng a com plai nt t oll s t he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons 120 days , buti f the pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o s erve pr oces s on the def endantw i thi n that120- day peri od , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons aut om at i cal l y begi ns t o run agai n w hen thatper i od expi r es . ” Hol m es , 815 So. 2d at1185 ( ci t i ng W

atters , 6 7 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 4 ). B e c a u se B u c k n e r d id n o t se rv e th e d e fe n d a n ts
w i thi n the 120- day per i od and he w as notent i t l ed t o an ext ens i on of t i m e, hi s compl ai ntw as su b jec t to d ism iss a l. M .R .C .P . 4 (h ). N o rm a lly , as p ro v id e d in R u le 4 (h ), th e d ism iss a l is to b e w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e . I

n re Holt

z m an , 8 23 So . 2 d a t1 18 2 n. 1. H oweve r , i f the s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s h a s ru n , th e n d is m is s a l w ith p re ju d ic e is a p p ro p ri a te . I d. ¶23 . U nd er th e M issi ssipp i T o rtC lai m s A ct(M T C A ), a on e-year s t atute of l i m i t at i on s, al ong w i th t ol l i ng pr ovi s i ons , appl i ed t o B uckner ’ s cl ai m agai ns tC opi ah C ounty School D istri ct an d i ts em p loy ee , F u n ch es. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). A few y ea rs ago, thi s C our tacknow l edged thati tha d be en i ncons i s t enti n i nt erpr et i ng M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 , a n d th a t o u r d e c is io n s h a d b e e n a m b ig u o u s . P ag e v. U n i v. of S. Miss. , 878 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶ 2 4 . T h e M T C A ’s o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f li m itatio n s a p p lies to c laim s a g a in st th e S tate , a sta te agenc y, county, muni ci pal i ty, orotherpol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002)
. Sect i on 11- 46- 11 r equi r es a pl ai nt i f f t o f i l e a not i ce of

cl ai m w i th the St at e or

### Th e statute o f limitatio ns is to lled for a 9 5-d ay perio d if a state go vernmental entity 2 

### is involved. But t

he s tatut e of

limi tati ons i s t oll ed f

or a 120-day period if a munic ipa l or county gover

nme nta l e nti ty “ or other

poli ti ca l s ubdivi si on” i s involve d. 12 a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on and al l ow s fort he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o be t ol l ed f ora cer t ai n amount of t i m e, dependi ng on the f act s of the ca s e. N ot i ce of

cl ai m m us tbe f

i l ed ni nety days pr i or t o fi l i ng sui t . M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 1 -46-11 (1) (R ev. 20 02 ). B ut i f the p l ai nti ff recei ves a d e n ia l o f n o tic e o f c la im , th e p la in tif f m a y file su it w ith o u t w a itin g th e fu ll n in e ty d a y s . L ee v. Mem ’l Hosp. at G u l

fport , 999 So. 2d 1263, 1268 ( M i s s . 2008)
. The purpos e of the not i ce
r equi r ementi n the M T C A i s t o i nf or m the governm ent al ent i ty of the exi s t ence of

a cl ai m t hat
m a y g iv e r is e to a la w s u it in th e fu tu re . T h orn bu rg v. Mag n olia R eg’l Healt h Ctr. , 741 So. 2 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). ¶25. L i kew i s e, thi s C our tr ece nt l y r econc i l ed the appa r entconf l i ctbetw een the l anguage of S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) a n d th a t o f S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ). S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) p ro v id e s , i nt er
a lia , t hata c l a i mantmus tf i l e a n ot i c e o f

c l a i m w i th the c hi e f

e xe c ut i ve o f

f i c e rof t he d e sig n a ted g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity a t lea st n in e ty d a y s p rio r to m a in tain in g a c a u se o f a c tio n in
c o u rt . S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ) p ro v id e s , in tera lia , thatthe one- yearl i m i t at i ons per i od ther ei n s et outw oul d be t ol l ed f

ora pe r i od of

t i m e upon the f

i l i ng of the not i ce r equi r ed underSect i on 2 11- 46- 11( 1)
. I n D el

ta R egional

Medical Centerv. G r een , 4 3 S o . 3 d 1 0 9 9 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ), th is C our ts t at ed: I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that , once the cl ai m antha s metthe not i ce r equi r ement s of Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 1) , the cl ai m antm ay f i l e s ui t . T he pr obl em, how ever , l i es w ith in S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ). A s w ritten , the p h ra se in S u b se c tio n (3 ) sits in di r ectconf

l i ctw i th t he ni nety- day not i ce r equi r ementfound i n Sect i on 11- 46-

### 13

11( 1)
. T oday w e cl ar i f

y Subse ct i on ( 3) a nd hol d the phr as e “dur i ng w hi ch no act i on m ay be mai nt ai ned by the cl ai m antunl es s the cl ai m anthas r ece i ved a not i ce of deni al of cl ai m ” t o be unenf

or cea bl e. Fr om thi s day f orw ar d, Sect i on 11 -46-11(3) s erves only t o tol l the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. T o h old ot herw i se w o u ld w o rk a n illo g ic a l b u rd e n o n th e c la im a n t. I d . a t 1 1 0 3 -0 4 . ¶26. T hus , once a not i ce of cl ai m i s pr oper l y f i l ed ( r ece i ved by the s t atutor i l y des i gnat ed
o f f i c i a l o f th e g o v e r n me n t a l e n t i ty ) , th e 3 6 5
- d a y s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o M TCA
ca ses m ay be t o ll ed for e ith er 9 5 o r 12 0 d ay s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). A ft er the tol l i ng peri od has passed, the running of t he 36 5-day st atute of l i m i t at i on s r esum es. P age , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 5 . ¶ 2 7 . “ A fte r th e to lli n g p e rio d h a s e x p ire d , th e c laim a n t sh a ll th e n h a v e a n a d d iti o n a l n in e ty ( 90) days t o f

i l e any a ct i on . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002)
. “Thi s 90 days is in a d d itio n to th e b a la n c e o f th e 3 6 5 d a y s n o t u s e d a s o f t h e d a te w h e n n o tic e w a s g iv e n .” P age , 878 S o. 2 d at1005. I f the governm ent al ent i ty deni es the cl ai m , the 95- or120- day t o l l i n g p e r i o d e n d s i mme d i a t e l y , a n d “ th e a d d i t i o n a l 9 0 d a y s i s a d d e d t o th e r e ma i n i n g t i me l ef ti n the or i gi nal one yea rper i od notused att he t i m e not i ce w as r ece i ved. ” P age , 878 So. 2d at1005. T he pl ai nt i f f does notr ece i ve the f

ul l benef i tof the 95- or120- day t ol l i ng per i od if th e g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity d e n ie s th e c la im p ri o r t o th e e x p ir a tio n o f t h e to llin g p e ri o d
. I d. ¶2 8 . In a d d it ion to the p roc ed u ral requ ire m e n ts o u tli n ed in the M T C A , p lai n ti ffs also a re b o u n d b y o u r R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . A s p re v io u sly d isc u ss e d , o f sig n ifica n t im p o rt in to d a y ’s c a se is R u le 4 (h ), w h ich re q u ire s p lain tiffs to se rv e p ro c e ss o n th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith in 120 days of

f i l i ng a compl ai nt , or“the ac t i on s hal l be di s m i s s ed as t o thatdef endantw i thout

### 14

pr e j ud i c e up on the c ou r t ’ s own i ni t i a t i ve w i th n ot i c e t o s uc h pa r ty oru po n mot i on . ” M . R. C. P. 4 (h ). T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “f ili n g o f th e c o m p lain t ev e n w ith o u t se rv ice o f p ro c e ss to lls the .
. . s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons f

ort he 120- day per i od al l ow ed i n M . R . C . P. 4( h)
. ” O w ens v. Mai , 891 So. 2d 220, 223 ( M i s s . 2005)
. U nl es s pr oces s i s s erved w i thi n the 120- day p eri od as pr ovi ded by R ul e 4( h) , the runni ng of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons r es um es . ” I d. ¶29. T urni ng t o the f

act s bef or e us , the def

endant s ’ al l egedl y t or t i ous conduct occurr ed on D ece m ber15, 20 06 . I ti s un di s pu t e d tha tBuck ne rt i mel y f i l e d the no t i c e of

c l a i m r e qu i r ed b y M iss iss ipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (1). M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). H ow ever , w e ar e neve rt ol d, and the r ecor d does notr evea l , w hen the r equi r ed not i ce w as
r ece i ved by the governm ent al ent i ty, C opi ah C oun t y S cho ol D i s tr i ct , i n or dert o tr i ggert he t ol l i ng pr ovi s i ons of

t he M T C A . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002)
. N ordoes the
r e c o r d r e v e a l th a tCo p i a h Co u n ty S c h o o l Di s tr i c td e n i e d th e c l a i m. ¶3 0 . O n rev iew o f th e tri al co u rt’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ru lin g , w e c o n side r ev iden ti ary
m a tte rs in th e li g h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Gu ida n t Mu t . I n s . Co . v. I

n de m. I ns. Co. , 1 3 S o . 3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). I n c a lcu latin g th e lim itatio n s p e rio d a p p lica b le t o B uckner ’ s cl ai m , w e cons i derf act s i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o B uckner , and gi ve B ucknert he benef

i tof al l avai l abl e t ol l i ng pr ovi s i ons underthe M T C A . Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 1)
r equi r ed B ucknert o fi l e t he not i ce of cl ai m ni nety days pr i ort o f i l i ng the l aw s ui ton O ct ober 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . B u t d u e to th e o p e ra tio n o f S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ), B u c k n e r w a s n o t re q u ire d to file
s ui ton the ni net i eth day af t erf i l i ng the not i ce of

cl ai m . A f

t erthe not i ce of

cl ai m i s r ece i ved, Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 3) gi ves a pl ai nt i f f ei ther 95 or 120 da ys i n w hi ch t o f i l e s ui t , dependi ng on

### To avo id fo stering con fusio n, w e no te that th e 12 0-d ay p eriodfor serv ice of p rocess 3 

### under Rule4(h) of the Mi ss is sippi Rul es of Ci vilProc edur e i s e ntire ly s eparateand di stinc t from th e 12 0-d ay to llingperio d und er Sectio n 1 1-4 6-1 1(3 ). 15 the ty p e o f go v ern m en tal en ti ty inv o lved
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -11 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). B eca us e, underSect i on 11- 46- 1( i ) , C opi ah C ounty School D i s tr i cti s a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on, the r ece i ptof

a not i ce of

cl ai m by C opi ah C ounty Sch ool D i s tr i ctt ol l ed the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

or120 days
. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002)
. A f t erthat120- day t ol l i ng per i od expi r ed, B uckner had an addi t i onal 90 days i n w hi ch t o f i l e s ui t . M i s s . C ode A n n . 1 1 -46 -11 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). T h ere fore , to g ive B u ck n er the b en efito f all the a v ail ab le t ol l i ng pr ovi s i ons underthe M T C A , w e pr es um e thatCopi ah C ounty School D i s tr i ctr ece i ved B uckner ’ s noti ce o f

cl ai m 210 ( 120 + 90) da ys pr i ort o f i l i ng s ui t . T hus , beca us e B uckner fi led s u ito n O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , w e p resu m e tha t he fil ed the n o ti ce o f claim 2 1 0 d ay s ea rl ier,
o n A p ri l 3 , 2 0 0 7 . ¶31. O n A pr i l 3, 2007, 109 days had run on the l i m i t at i ons per i od. A s s t at ed i n the pr evi ous par agr aph, the r ece i ptof the not i ce of

cl ai m by C opi ah C ounty School D i s tr i ctt ol l ed the l i m i t at i ons per i od f

or210 days underthe pr ovi s i ons of Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 3) , f r om A pr i l 3, 2007 t o O ct ober30, 2007. W hen B ucknerf i l ed the compl ai nton O ct ob er 30, 2007, the pr ov i s i on s o f

Rul e 4 ( h) t ol l e d the run ni ng of the l i mi t a t i on s pe r i od f or12 0 d a ys . M . R. C. P.

3 4 (h ); O wens , 8 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 2 2 3 . B e c a u se B u c k n e r d id n o t ef fe c t se rv ice o f p ro c e ss , the sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons r es um ed runni ng on February 27, 2008, af t erthe expi r at i on of

the 120- day p e ri o d p ro v id e d b y R u le 4 (h ). See M .R .C .P . 4 (h ); O wens , 891 So. 2d at223. O n thatday,

### 16

256 days r emai ned of

the one- yearl i m i t at i ons per i od. A ppl yi ng the rul es f orcomput at i on of t i m e underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 6( a) , the l i m i t at i ons per i od expi r ed on N ov em ber 10, 2008
. C on si deri ng the fact s i n the l i gh tm ostfav o rab le to B uck ner, becau se the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons ha d run be f

or e the def

endant s w er e s erved, di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce
w as pr oper . T her ef

or e, w e r ever s e the t r i al court ’ s or derdenyi ng the mot i on t o s etas i de and fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a n d re n d e r a ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f t h e d e fe n d a n ts . CO NC L US I ON ¶32. W e f

i nd that , beca us e s ubs t ant i al evi dence di d not s uppor t a f i ndi ng of good caus e f

or B uckner ’ s f

ai l ur e t o s erve the def

endant s w i thi n the 120- day per i od, Bucknerw as notent i t l ed t o an ext ens i on of

t i m e to ef

f ects ervi ce. T her ef

or e, the tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by den ying t he d efendan t s’ m oti on t o setasi de t he order grant i ng the extensi on of t i m e. B ecause the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed, the compl ai ntw as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce. W e re v e rs e th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n a n d re n d e r a ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f t h e d e fe n d a n ts . ¶ 3 3 . RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D D I CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RA NDOL P H, LA M AR, P I E RC E AN D K I NG , J J . , CO NC UR . KI T CH E NS , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .