Barnes v. LQ Management, L.L.C.

Filing 37

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
DONNELL BARNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
LQ MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
etc., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv914-MHT
(WO)

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
brings

state-law

claims

of

negligence,

wantonness,

product liability, respondeat superior, and negligent and
wanton

hiring,

training

and

supervision

against

LQ

Management and several individual defendants, including
defendant Stephen Hopkins.
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332
(diversity jurisdiction).

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
filed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Horenkamp v. Van Winkle and

Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).
Barnes

amended

his

November 20, 2012.

complaint

to

add

Hopkins

on

He explains that he was unable to

serve Hopkins within 120 days of this date because he
could

not

identity

locate
through

him.
an

Barnes

employee

learned

roster

of

Hopkins’s

provided

by

LQ

Management; that roster did not, however, list Hopkins’s
address.
addresses

LQ Management eventually provided Barnes with
for

the

employees

listed

on

its

employee

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

2

accurate.

The

private

investigator

has

interviewed

former neighbors of Hopkins, has searched for him at
other

local

hotels,

and

has

performed

electronic

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
his

efforts

inaccurate

to

serve

information

Hopkins
provided

were
by

frustrated

Hopkins’s

by

former

employer; and that the failure to serve Hopkins does not
warrant dismissal of the complaint.

Accordingly, the

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.

As

such, the court will not grant the full 60 days from
today’s date, but will require Barnes serve Hopkins by
June 17, 2013.
***

3

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)
is granted.
(2) Plaintiff Barnes has until June 17, 2013 to serve
defendant Stephen Hopkins.
(3) The resolution of this motion does not affect the
deadline

for

serving

any

defendant

other

than

defendant Hopkins.
DONE, this the 8th day of May, 2013.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE