• Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now

Effect of the Statute of Limitations on a Complaint Filed without Bona Fide Intent to Serve the Defendants

Effect of the Statute of Limitations on a Complaint Filed without Bona Fide Intent to Serve the Defendants

September 15, 2016 Posted by Jeremy W. Richter Rules of Civil Procedure

ENT Associates of Alabama, P.A., et al. v. Lauryn Diane Hoke – Where a plaintiff has no bona fide intent to serve defendants at the time a complaint is filed or prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the action is not commenced and is time-barred.

On September 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of Alabama published its decision in ENT Associates of Alabama, P.A., et al. v. Lauryn Diane Hoke [Ms. 1141396] and Baptist ventures, Inc. d/b/a Montgomery Surgical Center, LLP v. Lauryn Diane Hoke [Ms. 1141401], — So.3d — (Ala. 2016), arising out of the medical malpractice claims made by Hoke against the Defendants.

On April 11, 2011, Hoke received medical treatment from the Defendants. On April 10, 2013, Hoke filed a medical malpractice suit against the Defendants in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Attorney John Loeschen signed the suit as counsel for plaintiff, but at the time of filing, Loeschen was not licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama. No attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama was a signatory on the Complaint. The Complaint was electronically filed by Alabama attorney Benjamin Pool. Additionally, the Complaint did not included the addresses of the Defendants or contain any instruction for service of process.

Fifty-five (55) days after filing the Complaint, attorney Loeschen filed an application for admission to practice in Alabama, and identified attorney Pool as the local counsel of record in the Hoke matter. The Defendants were served with the Complain and Summons on June 18, 2013 (69 days after the Complaint was filed).  Thereafter, the defendants moved to strike the complaint and dismiss the suit, arguing that the Complaint was a nullity under Rule VII of the Rules Governing Admission to the Alabama Bar because it had not been filed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Alabama. They further argued that because Hoke did not have an intent to serve the Defendants at the time her Complaint was filed and the two-year statute of limitations had run before the Defendants were served, Hoke’s medical malpractice claims were barred by the statute of limitations, under Alabama Code (1975) § 6-5-482.

After hearing evidence from the parties as to whether Pool was or was not intended to be counsel for Hoke at the time of the Complaint being filed, the Circuit Court certified to questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama, pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 5:

  1. Whether Hoke’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations on the ground that the Complaint was a nullity because it was filed contrary to Rule VII of the Rules Governing Admission to the Alabama Bar since (a) it was filed by an out-of-state attorney who had not filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, and (b) no Alabama-licensed attorney was identified on the Complaint; and
  2. Whether Hoke’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations on the ground that Hoke did not have an intent to serve the Defendants at the time the Complaint was filed.

The Supreme Court of Alabama declined to address Question 1, concluding that the answer to Question 2 is dispositive of the appeals and pretermitted discussion of Question 1.

In answer to Question 2, the Alabama Supreme Court found no evidence to suggest that Hoke intended to serve process upon the Defendants at the time her complaint was filed. The Court noted that although “delay may not be evidence, in and of itself, of a lack of a bona fide intent to immediately serve the complaint at the time it is filed, delay in conjunction with the absence of evidence of any steps taken by the plaintiff to effectuate service at the time of filing the complaint is evidence of a lack of a bona fide intent to immediately serve the complaint.” See Precise v. Edwards, 60 So.3d 228 (Ala. 2010). The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the fact that the Defendants were in fact served within the timeframe set forth by Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b) has no bearing on the question or whether the action was timely commenced for the purposes of the statue of limitations.

The Court held that where there is no evidence that the plaintiff made any attempt to take any of the required steps to effectuate service upon the defendants at the time of the complaint was filed or any time thereafter, the plaintiff did not possess a bona fide intent to immediately serve the defendants at the time the complaint was filed, and the action was not commenced prior to the running of the statute of limitations, and is therefore time-barred pursuant to Alabama Code (1975) § 6-5-482.

 

Do your best work. Be your best self.

Get the first three chapters of Level Up Your Law Practice so you can have a successful and sustainable law practice that meets your needs through self-assessment, having a vision for yourself and your practice, and client relationships that are built on trust.

Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

You also might be interested in

Underinsured Motorist Insurer’s Subrogation Interest in a Lambert Advance

Jul 11, 2016

A UIM insurer does not have a subrogation interest in Lambert advance; the recovery by the insurer from the tortfeasor of a Lambert advance does not create a common fund; and the UIM insurer should not be required to pay attorney's fees for the recovery of the Lambert advance under the common-fund doctrine.

Adoption of the Alabama Rules for Expedited Civil Actions

Adoption of the Alabama Rules for Expedited Civil Actions

Nov 10, 2016

Beginning in 2017, parties to a lawsuit in circuit court in Alabama, whose damages are limited to $50,000.00 can voluntarily assent to their case being assigned to the Alabama Rules for Expedited Civil Actions.

Former Estate Representative’s Wrongful Death Action May Be a Nullity

Jul 19, 2016

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the personal representative of an estate who had been discharged and released as the estate representative prior to filing a wrongful death action, was without capacity to file the wrongful death action, and its filing was a nullity.

Being a lawyer doesn’t mean doing business as usual.

Recent Posts

  • Inspiration Strikes at the Oddest Times
  • Quitting One Thing to Make Room for Another (Lawyerpreneur’s Finale)
  • From High-Rise Buildings to High-Stakes Thrillers with Bonnie Kistler
  • Mental Health among Lawyers with Suzan Hixon
  • Coaching Lawyers in Career Crisis with Annie Little

Search the Blog

Contact Me

Send me an email and I'll get back to you.

Send Message
Doing your best work. Be your best self. Let me help you get there with my new book "Level Up Your Law Practice"

© 2023 · Richter Holdings, LLC

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Prev Next