McClurkin v. Willis
2017 Ark. App. 247
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 19, 2016 McClurkin filed suit alleging a 2013 car accident injury; original defendant was Mark Willis though he was not the driver.
- Mark moved to dismiss; McClurkin amended to name Debra Kay Willis, later learned she was not the driver and she had died before the accident.
- On May 16, 2016 McClurkin filed a second amended complaint naming Lauren Jenae Willis (the minor driver) and Mark (for negligent entrustment); service was required by May 18, 2016.
- McClurkin filed a motion to extend time to serve on May 17, 2016 and sought to vacate prior dismissals of Mark; the circuit court denied the extension as untimely, dismissed the second amended complaint as time-barred (finding Lauren lacked notice), and denied relief from the prior dismissal of Mark (which had been entered with prejudice).
- On appeal the court addressed: (1) whether denial of extension to serve was an abuse of discretion; (2) whether claims against Lauren related back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c); and (3) whether the dismissal of Mark should have been without prejudice or could be vacated under Rule 60.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying McClurkin's motion to extend time to serve under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2) | Motion for extension was filed May 17, 2016 — within 120 days — so it was timely and showed good-cause facts about failed service attempts | Motion was untimely and service defects barred the claims | Reversed: the extension motion was timely (filed one day before deadline); denial as untimely was abuse of discretion |
| Whether McClurkin’s claims against Lauren relate back under Ark. R. Civ. P. 15(c) so they are not time-barred | The second amended complaint arises from same occurrence; relation-back applies if Lauren received notice within the Rule 4(i) service period | Lauren lacked notice within the service period; claims are time-barred | Reversed dismissal as to Lauren because the Rule 4(i) extension question affects the Rule 15(c) notice window; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the court erred in denying McClurkin’s Rule 60 motion and whether dismissal of Mark should be with prejudice | Dismissal of Mark was effectively a 12(b)(6) failure-to-state claim and should be without prejudice to allow amendment; Rule 60 relief appropriate to correct error | Dismissal was proper because Mark was not the driver and not a proper party; dismissal with prejudice was supported | Modification: dismissal with prejudice was erroneous where based on 12(b)(6) grounds; court modified dismissal to without prejudice; denial of Rule 60 relief otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 436 S.W.3d 445 (Ark. 2014) (dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should be without prejudice)
- Ark. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Brighton Corp., 102 S.W.3d 458 (Ark. 2003) (same principle regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim)
- Nobles v. Tumey, 379 S.W.3d 639 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 4(i) service-extension denials)