Opinion ID: 1664690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the circuit court erred in denying Bacou-Dalloz's Motion to Dismiss for failure to serve process within 120 days pursuant to M.R.C.P. 4(h).

Text: ¶ 10. Rule 4(h) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure addresses service of process: If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion. M.R.C.P. 4(h) (emphasis added). Bacou-Dalloz asserts the circuit court erred by denying its Motion to Dismiss for failure to serve within the 120-day period provided by Rule 4(h). The record indicates plaintiffs attempted service of the Original Complaint on Corporation Service Company at the wrong name and wrong address, although the address was one used by plaintiffs' counsel in the past to serve Bacou-Dalloz. Somehow, another company CT Corporation Systemreceived Bacou-Dalloz's service of process, and plaintiffs were informed of this error by letter dated December 10, 2002. Plaintiffs made no attempt to serve Bacou-Dalloz with their First Amended Complaint, filed December 31, 2002. Plaintiffs only served Bacou-Dalloz with the Second Amended Complaint on May 24, 2004, which was 619 days following the filing of the Original Complaint; 499 days after the 120-day period for service of process expired; and one year and five months after plaintiffs learned they had effected service on the wrong agent of process. Under these facts, plaintiffs clearly failed to timely serve Bacou-Dalloz. ¶ 11. When service is not made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, a plaintiff must show good cause why process was not served within that period, or dismissal of the suit is required. M.R.C.P. 4(h). See also Triple C Transp., Inc. v. Dickens, 870 So.2d 1195, 1200-01 (Miss. 2004); Holmes, 815 So.2d at 1185. Therefore, according to Rule 4(h) and this Court's precedent, the trial court should have dismissed this action as to Bacou-Dalloz without prejudice unless plaintiffs demonstrated good cause as to why service was not made within the 120-day service period. ¶ 12. In order to establish good cause, plaintiffs must demonstrate at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice. Webster v. Webster, 834 So.2d 26, 28 (Miss. 2002) (citations omitted). The record indicates plaintiffs attempted service of the original complaint on Bacou-Dalloz through its registered agent for service of process at an incorrect name and incorrect address. Even though they were informed of their mistake by letter dated December 10, 2002, plaintiffs never explain why process was not then reissued for Bacou-Dalloz's agent for process at its correct address and served during the 120-day period. They likewise fail to explain why they did not attempt to serve process for 499 days following the expiration of the 120-day service period. ¶ 13. Further, this Court has held that, if it appears service cannot be made within the 120-day period, a diligent plaintiff should file [a motion for additional time to serve process] within the 120-day time period. Such diligence would support an allegation that good cause exists for failure to serve process timely. Id. at 29. Plaintiffs did not file the recommended motion for extension of time. Instead, they filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and requested the clerk reissue summons on March 8, 2004, which was 442 days after the 120-day period to serve process had expired. ¶ 14. The record shows plaintiffs made only two attempts at servicethe first in December 2002 at an incorrect address, and the second on May 24, 2004, successfully serving Bacou-Dalloz. Plaintiffs' inaction, without adequate explanation, shows a lack of good cause far beyond excusable neglect. Because plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for not timely serving Bacou-Dalloz, dismissal is required.