Court Opinion

ID: 9621342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:56:39.78196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:02.731803
License: Public Domain

Justice KIDWELL,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. A determination of good cause should be based on the totality of the circumstances. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Martins, good cause existed because the Martins (1) were engaged in active negotiations with Hoblit’s insurance company, (2) had agreed with Hob-lit’s insurance adjuster that Hoblit would not be served “until such time as [the parties] were unable to reach an agreement on settlement of [the] claim,” and (3) had attempted to serve Hoblit before the expiration of the six-month period, both personally and through the insurance company.
I.R.C.P. 4(a)(2) should not be utilized as a procedural trap. Rather, I believe that it should be interpreted in such a manner to encourage settlement. The good cause provision of the rule seems to contemplate flexibility in its application. Where, as here, the plaintiff was engaged in active negotiations, believed there was an agreement to settle out of court, could not locate the defendant, and *378could not get a service address from the defendant’s representatives, the totality of the circumstances provides good cause for the failure to serve the defendant within the six-month period.
Justice SILAK, concurs.