Maeola Goldthrip v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
665 F. App'x 808
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 25, 2013, Maeola Goldthrip was injured allegedly by a DePuy hip implant.
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court on Dec. 23, 2015—two days before Alabama’s two‑year statute of limitations expired.
- The complaint expressly stated Plaintiffs were “withholding Service of Process” to pursue settlement and would serve later.
- Plaintiffs sent copies of the complaint and a proposed tolling agreement to DePuy’s agent on Dec. 28, 2015; a summons was not issued until Feb. 17, 2016.
- DePuy moved for summary judgment; the district court held the action did not commence on filing because Plaintiffs lacked intent to immediately serve, and granted summary judgment for DePuy.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying Alabama law that filing alone does not commence an action for limitations purposes without bona fide intent to effect immediate service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action was "commenced" before the statute of limitations ran when the complaint was filed but service was intentionally withheld | Filing the complaint on Dec. 23, 2015 commenced the action before the limitations period expired | Withholding service shows no bona fide intent to immediately serve; filing alone does not commence the action | Filing did not commence the action; withholding service defeated the requisite intent, so limitations had run and summary judgment for DePuy affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Procter & Gamble Distributing, LLC, 766 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for district court’s summary judgment is de novo)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1980) (state law governs when an action is commenced for statute‑of‑limitations purposes in diversity cases)
- Ex parte E. Ala. Mental Health–Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 939 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2006) (filing alone does not commence an action for limitations purposes)
- Precise v. Edwards, 60 So. 3d 228 (Ala. 2010) (complaint must be filed and there must be bona fide intent to have it immediately served)
- Ward v. Saben Appliance Co., 391 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1980) (the required intent is intent to have process immediately served)
- Freer v. Potter, 413 So. 2d 1079 (Ala. 1982) (withholding service shows lack of intent to prosecute and filing will not constitute commencement)
- Smith v. Medtronic, Inc., 607 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 1992) (identifies governing statute of limitations for claims at issue)