Brown v. K-MAC Enterprises
897 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133633, 2012 WL 4321711 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Filing an amended complaint does not restart the statutory time period for service of process on a defendant named in the original complaint. To excuse a failure to effect timely service under Oklahoma law, a plaintiff must demonstrate 'good cause' with more than an attorney's unsworn, conclusory statements.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was an employee of K-MAC Enterprises, Inc. ('K-MAC'), a Taco Bell franchisee.
- Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to discrimination based on disability, race, gender, and age during her employment.
- Plaintiff also alleges K-MAC interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- Plaintiff claims she was retaliated against for filing a workers' compensation claim.
- K-MAC terminated Plaintiff's employment.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued Plaintiff a Right to Sue letter, giving her 90 days to file a lawsuit regarding her federal discrimination claims.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a Petition against K-MAC Enterprises, Inc. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma (a state trial court) on July 6, 2011.
- On October 24, 2011, the state trial court dismissed the action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to issue a summons within 90 days.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the dismissal order in the state trial court on January 13, 2012.
- The state trial court granted the Motion to Vacate on the same day.
- Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition against K-MAC and Taco Bell, LLC on January 17, 2012.
- On February 9, 2012, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (a federal trial court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does filing an amended complaint restart the 180-day statutory period for service of process on a defendant who was named in the original complaint?
Opinions:
Majority - Terence C. Kern
No. Filing an amended complaint does not restart the service clock for defendants named in the original complaint. The court reasoned, by analogy to federal rules, that allowing the clock to restart would permit a plaintiff to indefinitely extend the time for service by repeatedly filing amended complaints. Therefore, the 180-day service period under Oklahoma law began on July 6, 2011, when the original petition was filed, and expired on January 2, 2012. Since Plaintiff served K-MAC on January 17, 2012, service was untimely. The court further found that Plaintiff failed to show 'good cause' for the delay, as the only justification offered—an unsworn statement that counsel was 'unsure of the proper defendant'—is insufficient under Oklahoma law, which requires more than conclusory representations. Consequently, the claims against K-MAC were deemed dismissed by operation of state statute prior to removal.
Analysis:
This case clarifies how federal courts sitting in diversity or with supplemental jurisdiction handle pre-removal service of process issues, affirming that state law governs the validity of service perfected before removal. By adopting the reasoning from federal precedent (Bolden v. City of Topeka) to interpret state law, the court establishes persuasive authority that filing an amended complaint does not restart the service clock for existing defendants, thereby preventing procedural gamesmanship. The decision serves as a significant warning to practitioners about the strictness of statutory service deadlines and the high bar for establishing 'good cause' for a delay, which requires more than vague, unsubstantiated excuses from counsel.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. K-MAC Enterprises