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
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?