THIBAULT v. GARCIA, 2017 OK CIV APP 36

On Sept. 4, 2013 Thibault filed a negligence petition alleging Garcia hit him on Jan. 27, 2013; he did not cause summons to issue then.
No summons was served within 180 days; 181 days after filing (March 4, 2014) the statutory grace period expired under 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2004(I).
Garcia filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss on March 9, 2015, arguing the action was "deemed dismissed" for failure to serve within 180 days and no good cause had been shown.
Thibault filed an amended petition March 13, 2015 and caused summons to issue, arguing the amended filing reset the 180‑day period; the district court rejected that argument.
The district court entered dismissal (journal entry dated May 13, 2015) stating the dismissal was effective April 15, 2015; Garcia appealed only the effective date of dismissal.
The Court of Civil Appeals held the statute is clear: if no good cause is shown, the action is deemed dismissed as of the 181st day after filing; it affirmed the dismissal as modified to make the effective date March 4, 2014.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a failure to serve within 180 days results in dismissal "as of" the 181st day or only when the court later orders dismissal	Thibault argued his amended petition (filed before a responsive pleading) effectively extended or reset the 180‑day period	Garcia argued the statutory language "shall be deemed dismissed" operates automatically once 180 days pass without service and no good cause is shown	Court held the dismissal is by operation of law on the 181st day after filing when no good cause is shown; the district court's effective date was modified accordingly

Mott v. Carlson, 786 P.2d 1247 (1990) (construed original § 2004(I) and treated actions as dismissed as a matter of law after the 180‑day period)
Fischer v. Baptist Health Care of Oklahoma, 14 P.3d 1292 (2000) (interpreted earlier version using "may" and held dismissal discretionary)
Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc., 194 P.3d 1285 (2008) (similar to Fischer on discretionary dismissal under a "may" formulation)
Moore v. Sneed, 839 P.2d 682 (1992 OK CIV APP) (affirmed dismissal as of the 181st day where service not shown and no good cause proved)
Stockbridge Energy, LLC v. Taylor, 359 P.3d 181 (2015) (limits ability to use amended pleadings to avoid statutes of limitation and related time bars)
Douglas v. Cox Ret. Props., Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (2013) (addressed unconstitutionality of 2009 statute version; relevant to retroactivity/validity issues)
Colclazier & Associates v. Stephens, 277 P.3d 1285 (2012 OK CIV APP) (applied earlier § 2004(I) amendments retroactively and discussed dismissal timing)