Exum v. Melton

Although venue vanished when plaintiffs dismissed the only resident defendant, the trial court retained jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion to dismiss due to insufficiency of service of process.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In June 1994, Albert L. Exum, individually and as administrator of the estate of his late wife, commenced this medical negligence action against Dawn Acree, M.D., Howard L. Melton, M.D., Melton’s professional corporation, and the South Georgia Medical Center, in the State Court of Lowndes County. Within two weeks, service of process on Melton was attempted at his office by delivering the summons and complaint into the hands of Kristie Brown, ostensibly at Melton’s “most notorious place of abode. . . .” Service on the corporation was made by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with Kristie Brown, ostensibly “in charge of the office and place of doing business of said Corporation in this County.” Acree, Melton and the corporation jointly answered, raising, inter alia, objections to jurisdiction, venue, and the sufficiency of service of process.

In January 1995, defendants successfully moved to extend the time for discovery until the entry of the pretrial order. In January 1998, plaintiffs dismissed the claim against South Georgia Medical Center with prejudice, and in the following September, Melton and his corporation moved to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process or, alternatively, to transfer the case to Cook County, where defendant Acree resided. This motion was granted by dismissing the case against Melton and his corporation and by transferring the case against Acree to Cook County. On appeal, Exum contends dismissal was erroneous because i the trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on the motion, ii service was sufficient, iii defendants waived any insufficiency of service of process, and iv Melton was personally served promptly after the motion. We affirm the dismissals.

Exum v. Melton

Although venue vanished when plaintiffs dismissed the only resident defendant, the trial court retained jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion to dismiss due to insufficiency of service of process.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report