Lewis Entertainment, Inc. v. Brady, 142 So. 3d 396

On June 14, 2009 Carl Brady was injured at Extreme Skate Zone; the Bradys sued Oak Grove Skating Rink, Extreme Skate Zone, and John Does on the last day of the statute of limitations. Lewis Entertainment (Lewis) owned Extreme but was not named as a defendant.
The clerk issued summonses for Oak Grove and Extreme; no summons was issued for Lewis because it was not named.
The Bradys’ process server attempted to serve Oak Grove’s registered agent very late (on or after the 120th day) and persisted in trying to serve the wrong person after learning the agent was no longer associated and deceased; there were additional late attempts and a later delivery to a manager (not the registered agent).
The 120-day service period under M.R.C.P. 4 expired, the statute of limitations restarted and ran (so refiling was not possible); the Bradys filed a belated motion for more time but failed to get it heard.
Lewis moved to dismiss for failure to timely serve; the trial court denied the motion, finding the Bradys’ attempts to serve Oak Grove showed good cause. The Supreme Court granted interlocutory review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bradys showed "good cause" to avoid dismissal for failure to serve Lewis within 120 days	Their attempts to serve Oak Grove (an entity they believed related to the rink) justify relief	Bradys never named or properly served Lewis; attempts on unrelated party are insufficient and show lack of diligence	Reversed: no good cause; dismissal with prejudice appropriate

Rains v. Gardner, 731 So.2d 1192 (Miss. 1999) (standard for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
Watters v. Stripling, 675 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1996) (120-day tolling rule and good-cause requirement for service)
Holmes v. Coast Transit Auth., 815 So.2d 1183 (Miss. 2002) (good-cause/excusable neglect standard; simple inadvertence insufficient)
Copiah County Sch. Dist. v. Buckner, 61 So.3d 162 (Miss. 2011) (insufficient diligence and lack of good cause for late service)
Webster v. Webster, 834 So.2d 26 (Miss. 2002) (service at incorrect address and sparse attempts do not show diligence)
Bacou-Dalloz Safety, Inc. v. Hall, 938 So.2d 820 (Miss. 2006) (continued failure to correct inaccurate service after notice shows lack of good cause)
Montgomery v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 910 So.2d 541 (Miss. 2005) (diligence required to show good cause)
In re Holtzman, 823 So.2d 1180 (Miss. 2002) (examples of inadvertence or counsel mistakes are not good cause)
Systems Signs Supplies v. United States Dep't of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoted for federal discussion of tolling/good-cause principles)