McClenny Moseley & Associates is not Responsible for All Case Failures
Post 5059
Court Concludes There is No Excuse for Failure to Promptly Serve a Governmental Agency
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmFRP8Ef, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gjrj3NVk and at https://lnkd.in/gGCbuy8Y, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In Jimmie Legros v. Weston Property & Casualty Insurance Co, No. 6:22-CV-04401, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division (April 3, 2025) after Weston became insolvent the suit was amended to change the defendant to the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (“LIGA”) late.
LIGA moved to Dismiss and the Magistrate judge concluded that the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed the present action on August 25, 2022, against Weston Property & Casualty Insurance Company after suffering property damage during Hurricane Laura. The case was stayed from October 21, 2022, to March 30, 2023, due to the suspension and termination of Plaintiff’s prior counsel. On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s current counsel enrolled and on February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Substitute party requesting that LIGA be substituted as Defendant for Weston Property & Casualty Insurance Company which was granted on May 22, 2024.
LIGA moved to dismiss because they were not properly served until 134 days after their substitution in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff conceded that LIGA was not served within 90 days as required by Rule 4(m) but requests the Court to deny LIGA’s Motion as Plaintiff can establish good cause of the delayed service as this case was due to Plaintiff’s prior counsel.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss an action for insufficient service under Rule 12(b)(5).
It is undisputed that LIGA was not served within the required 90 days once it was substituted as Defendant. To establish good cause, a litigant 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.
Plaintiff contends he can establish good cause for delayed service. Specifically, per Plaintiff, this matter was previously handled by McClenny Moseley & Associates (“MMA”) and upon their dismissal by the various courts in multiple jurisdictions many clients were left without representation for extended periods of time.
According to Plaintiff, the delay in effecting service was due to the extraordinary circumstances resulting from MMA having to withdraw from the handling of thousands of files. While the Court was sympathetic to the plaintiffs who were left without representation following MMA’s suspension and the need for additional time to organize, sort, and process the multitude of cases, it does not excuse Plaintiff’s delay in service or failure to properly request an extension.
LIGA was substituted as Defendant well after MMA was removed from this case and after Plaintiff had secured new counsel. It was not until May 22, 2024 that LIGA was substituted as Defendant for Weston Property & Casualty Insurance Company after their insolvency in August 2022. For the next four months, the record shows that no action was taken to advance this matter. No request for an extension of time to effect service was made; rather, LIGA was served on October 3, 2024 – 134 days after it was substituted as Defendant.
The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish the requisite good cause to excuse his failure to effect service in a timely manner. Plaintiff’s counsel entered their appearance in this matter almost a full year before effecting service. Accordingly, the Court recommends that LIGA’s Motion to Dismiss be granted.
ZALMA OPINION
LIGA is a governmental agency easy to serve with a complaint. For reasons known only to counsel it took almost twice the time required by Federal Rules, 134 days to serve the defendant. New counsel tried to blame old counsel, MMA, for the delay, even though they had successfully moved to change the name of the defendant to LIGA from Weston and then did nothing to effect the service for 134 days when it could have been done immediately. That violation of the rules required dismissal and for once the fault did not belong to MMA who is now in bankruptcy. The plaintiff Jimmie Legros is not without a remedy since the court has already found the dismissal was due to the failure to act of current counsel.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
