THIBAULT v. GARCIA, 2017 OK CIV APP 36

On September 4, 2013 James E. Thibault filed a negligence petition against Eva M. Garcia arising from a January 27, 2013 car crash; he did not cause summons to be issued then.
Garcia moved to dismiss on March 9, 2015 under 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2004(I), which provides dismissal "shall be deemed" to occur if service is not made within 180 days and plaintiff cannot show good cause.
Thibault filed an amended petition and caused summons to issue only after Garcia moved to dismiss; he argued the amendment restarted the 180‑day period.
The district court granted Garcia’s motion and entered a Journal Entry dismissing the case without prejudice effective April 15, 2015 (date of the court minute); Thibault did not appeal the court’s rejection of his amended‑petition argument.
The Court of Civil Appeals addressed whether the dismissal is effective as of the court’s order date or as of 181 days after the original petition was filed, and whether the 2013 version of § 2004(I) applies retroactively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effective date of dismissal under 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2004(I): is dismissal deemed 181 days after filing or on the district court’s dismissal date?	Thibault argued his amended petition (filed after the motion) restarted the 180‑day period, so dismissal should be tied to the court order date.	Garcia argued the statute operates automatically if no good cause is shown and the action was deemed dismissed 181 days after filing.	Court held § 2004(I) causes a case to be deemed dismissed as of the 181st day if no good cause is shown; judgment affirmed as modified to make dismissal effective March 4, 2014 (181 days after filing).
Applicability/retroactivity of the 2013 amendment to § 2004(I)	Thibault implied the later amendment should not govern timing of dismissal for his original filing (filed during a gap after Douglas decision).	Garcia relied on the 2013 text requiring dismissal when no good cause is shown.	Court held the 2013 amendment is procedural and applies retroactively; it governs and mandates dismissal by operation of law on day 181 absent good cause.

Mott v. Carlson, 786 P.2d 1247 (1990 OK 10) (interpreting earlier § 2004(I) and stating action is considered dismissed as a matter of law if not served within 180 days).
Fischer v. Baptist Health Care of Oklahoma, 14 P.3d 1292 (2000 OK 91) (holding prior “may be dismissed” language made dismissal discretionary).
Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc., 194 P.3d 1285 (2008 OK 87) (same emphasis on discretionary dismissal under “may”).
Moore v. Sneed, 839 P.2d 682 (1992 OK CIV APP 107) (affirming dismissal as of day 181 where service not made and no good cause shown).
Colclazier & Associates v. Stephens, 277 P.3d 1285 (2012 OK CIV APP 45) (applied retroactivity to earlier § 2004(I) amendment).
Douglas v. Cox Ret. Props., Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (2013 OK 37) (invalidated 2009 Act on single‑subject grounds; discussed in statutory history).
Stockbridge Energy, LLC v. Taylor, 359 P.3d 181 (2015 OK 61) (construing limitations and amendment timing; used to reject a construction that would allow indefinite refiling beyond limitation constraints).