Specialty Risk of America v. Collins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SPECIALTY RISK OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-01261 MAL
)
JAMES COLLINS et al. 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Specialty Risk of America’s (“Specialty Risk”) Motion for Extension
of Time for Service, Doc. 41. 	Specialty Risk seeks to excuse their failure to serve a defendant
within the time allotted by FRCP 4(m). 	“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time. 	But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m). 	Here, Specialty Risk did not successfully
serve Defendants William Lyles, and Lyles Aw Holdings LLC, within 90 days. Doc. 41. They
must show good cause, or the action will be dismissed without prejudice.
I. 	Legal Standard for Good Cause
“A showing of good cause requires at least excusable neglect—good faith and some
reasonable basis for noncompliance with the rules.” Adams v. AlliedSignal Gen. Aviation Avionics,
74 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “[G]ood cause is likely (but not always) to be
found when . . . the plaintiff has acted diligently in trying to effect service or there are
understandable mitigating circumstances . . .” Kurka v. Iowa Cnty., Iowa, 628 F.3d 953, 957 (8th
Case: 4:25-cv-01261-MAL Doc. #: 47 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Cir. 2010) (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 1137 (3d ed.2002)).
At its core, however, the standard of good cause, like many others in the law, is
necessarily amorphous. Whether or not it has been satisfied is largely dependent
upon the facts of each individual case. 	It is for this very reason that such a
determination is entrusted to the sound and considerable discretion of the district
court in the first instance.
Id.
II. 	Application of Law to Facts
Good cause exists here because Specialty Risk acted diligently and in good faith.
Specialty Risk initially attempted to issue summons to Lyles Aw Holdings LLC’s registered agent
at the address Lyles Aw Holdings LLC had registered with the Missouri Secretary of State. Doc.
41-1 ¶4-5, Doc. 41-2 at 3. 	Specialty Risk initially attempted to issue summons to Lyle at the
address he used in the underlying criminal case. Doc. 41-1 ¶3. After learning both buildings were
vacant, Specialty Risk retained a private investigator to find the correct addresses. Id at ¶6. The
private investigator found another potential address for Lyles Aw Holdings LLC, but this building
was also vacant. Id at ¶7-9. Specialty Risk ultimately changed tactics and served both Lyles and
Lyles Holdings LLC at a status hearing in Lyles’s criminal case. 	Id at ¶14. 	This record
demonstrates a diligent good faith effort to serve Defendant’s. 	While it may have been wise to
attempt to serve Lyles at an earlier court hearing, Lyles had been released on bond before the initial
attempt at service so attempting to serve him at his outside address was not unreasonable. State of
Missouri v. William Lyles 24L6-CR00616 (Lyles was released on bond). Nothing in this record
indicates that Specialty Risk did not act diligently and in good faith. Specialty Risk has shown
good cause.
* 	* 	*
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time for Service, Doc. 41,
is GRANTED.
Case: 4:25-cv-01261-MAL Doc. #: 47 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
Dated this 17th day of February 2026.
MARIA A. LANAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01261-MAL Doc. #: 47 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>