Union Pacific Railroad v. Skender
2016 Ark. App. 206
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 11, 2012, Brian Skender was injured while working for Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) and filed a timely FELA suit on October 25, 2013.
- The summons/complaint service purportedly was made on UPRR’s registered agent, The Corporation Company; the clerk’s summons caption listed UPRR as defendant but the body of the summons was “directed to” the registered agent and did not name UPRR in the directed-to line.
- UPRR timely answered and also raised defects in process/service under Rule 12(b); after the statute of limitations expired, UPRR moved to dismiss with prejudice asserting lack of valid service.
- The trial court found the summons fatally deficient (because it did not properly “direct” the summons to UPRR) and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, applying an Arkansas savings statute to allow refiling.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the summons was fatally deficient, reversed the dismissal-without-prejudice ruling because state savings statutes do not apply to FELA claims, and remanded for findings on whether federal equitable tolling should allow refiling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the summons (strict compliance with Rule 4) | Skender: summons was sufficient; UPRR had actual notice and participated, so defect should not be fatal | UPRR: summons was fatally defective because the body was directed to the registered agent and did not name UPRR as the defendant | Court: Summons fatally deficient — strict compliance required; defendant’s knowledge does not cure defect |
| Effect of defective service given SOL has run — dismissal with or without prejudice | Skender: dismissal without prejudice; Arkansas savings statute (and/or equitable tolling) permits refiling | UPRR: dismissal must be with prejudice because statute of limitations expired and state savings statute does not apply to FELA | Court: Trial court erred applying Arkansas savings statute; remanded for trial court to decide federal equitable tolling and whether dismissal should be with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965) (state savings statutes do not apply to FELA claims)
- Nucor v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107 (2004) (summons that names defendant on its face apprises that defendant of suit)
- Earls v. Harvest Credit Mgmt. VI–B, LLC, 2015 Ark. 175 (2015) (defendant’s personal knowledge does not cure a fatal summons defect)
- Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 353 Ark. 701 (2003) (strict compliance with service rules is required)
- Steward v. Kuettel, 2014 Ark. 499 (2014) (statutory service requirements are strictly construed)