THIBAULT v. GARCIA
2017 OK CIV APP 36
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Thibault injured January 27, 2013; filed petition September 4, 2013, but did not serve summons within 180 days.
- Garcia moved to dismiss March 9, 2015 arguing lack of good cause under 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2004(I).
- Thibault amended petition March 13, 2015; summons issued; Garcia argued amended filing did not cure service delay.
- District court sustained Garcia’s motion and dismissed Thibault’s petition; dismissal memorialized May 13, 2015.
- Issue on appeal: whether § 2004(I) deeming dismissal occurs 181 days after filing or when the court orders dismissal.
- Court holds § 2004(I) 181-day deeming dismissal applies retroactively; dismissal effective date is 181 days after filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective date of dismissal under § 2004(I) | Thibault contends dismissal occurs on the court's order date. | Garcia argues dismissal occurs 181 days after filing if no service or good cause. | Deemed dismissal occurs on day 181 after filing. |
| Retroactivity of the 2013 amendment to § 2004(I) | Amendment should not apply retroactively to cure preexisting service delays. | 2013 amendment is procedural and retroactive, applying to this case. | 2013 amendment applied retroactively. |
| Amended petition effect on service period | Amended petition resets the 180-day clock. | Amendment does not toll or extend the 180-day requirement for service under § 2004(I). | Amended petition does not extend the initial 180-day service period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mott v. Carlson, 786 P.2d 1247 (1990 OK 10) (clarifies dismissal timing when service is late)
- Moore v. Sneed, 839 P.2d 682 (1992 OK CIV APP 107) (retroactivity of good-cause amendments; 181st-day dismissal)
- Fischer v. Baptist Health Care of Oklahoma, 14 P.3d 1292 (2000 OK 91) (discretionary dismissal when no good cause under earlier version)
- Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc., 194 P.3d 1285 (2008 OK 87) (discretionary dismissal under amended version)
- Colclazier & Associates v. Stephens, 277 P.3d 1285 (2012 OK CIV APP 45) (retroactivity of earlier version applied in similar context)
- Stockbridge Energy, LLC v. Taylor, 359 P.3d 181 (2015 OK 61) (limits refiling period after dismissal; avoids indefinite refile)
- Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (2013 OK 37) (statutory 'single subject' rule; 2009 version unconstitutional)
- Hathaway v. State ex rel. Med. Research & Tech. Auth., 49 P.3d 740 (2002 OK 53) (interpretation of statutory language; emphasis on clear text)
- Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 832 P.2d 834 (1992 OK 61) (use of 'shall' signals mandatory interpretation)
- Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 33 P.3d 302 (2001 OK 71) (legislative amendments presumed to change existing law)