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