Barnes v. LQ Management, L.L.C.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that: (1) plf Barnes's 36 MOTION for Extension of deadline of time to serve complaint is granted; (2) plf Barnes has until 6/17/13 to serve defendant Stephen Hopkins; (3) the resolution of this motion does not affect the deadline for serving any defendant other than defendant Hopkins. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/8/13. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
LQ MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
etc., et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Donnell Barnes charges that he was injured
as a proximate result of staying at one of defendant LQ
Management, L.L.C.’s hotels in Montgomery, Alabama; he
product liability, respondeat superior, and negligent and
Management and several individual defendants, including
defendant Stephen Hopkins.
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332
Before the court is Barnes’s
motion, filed today, for additional time to serve Hopkins
with his complaint.
The court has discretion to extend the deadline for
service even in the absence of good cause for failure to
serve a defendant within 120 days after the complaint is
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Horenkamp v. Van Winkle and
Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).
November 20, 2012.
He explains that he was unable to
serve Hopkins within 120 days of this date because he
Management; that roster did not, however, list Hopkins’s
LQ Management eventually provided Barnes with
roster, but this was not until after Barnes had filed the
November 20th complaint naming Hopkins and the 120-day
clock began ticking.
Once Barnes received the addresses,
he hired a private investigator to serve the individuals;
the private investigator failed to serve Hopkins because
the address LQ Management provided for him was no longer
former neighbors of Hopkins, has searched for him at
searches, but has still not been able to find Hopkins.
The court finds that Barnes has made a diligent,
good-faith effort to serve Hopkins within 120 days; that
employer; and that the failure to serve Hopkins does not
warrant dismissal of the complaint.
court will grant Barnes’s motion and extend the deadline
for serving Hopkins.
Barnes has asked for an additional 60 days to serve
Hopkins; however, the court notes that Barnes has already
exceeded the 120-day deadline by nearly 50 days.
such, the court will not grant the full 60 days from
today’s date, but will require Barnes serve Hopkins by
June 17, 2013.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff Donnell Barnes’s motion for extension
of deadline of time to serve complaint (doc. no. 36)
(2) Plaintiff Barnes has until June 17, 2013 to serve
defendant Stephen Hopkins.
(3) The resolution of this motion does not affect the
DONE, this the 8th day of May, 2013.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?