Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RHONDA JACKSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

25-338-SDD-SDJ

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY,

ET AL.

RULING

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss1 filed by Louisiana State University

(Healthcare Services Division). Since the filing of the Motion, Louisiana State University

has been replaced by the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and

Agricultural and Mechanical College as the proper party Defendant.2 Plaintiff, Rhonda

Jackson (“Plaintiff”), opposes the Motion,3 and Defendant filed a Reply.4 For the reasons

which follow, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in state court against Louisiana State University

(“LSU”).5 Plaintiff alleges she experienced harassment, retaliation, and discrimination

based on her age and race while she was a nurse at LSU.6 LSU removed the case to this

Court on the basis of federal question subject matter jurisdiction.7

LSU filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), arguing that it is not a proper defendant in this

1 Rec. Doc. 12.

2 Rec. Doc. 21.

3 Rec. Doc. 18-1.

4 Rec. Doc. 20.

5 Rec. Doc. 1-2, pp. 1–8.

6 Id.

7 Rec. Doc. 1.

action and that, even if it was, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service.8 In response,

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Substitute Proper Party, requesting that the Board of Supervisors

of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (hereinafter, the

“Board of Supervisors” or “Defendant”) be substituted in place of LSU.9 Plaintiff also filed

an untimely Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.10 LSU filed a Reply.11

Subsequently, Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Proper Party was granted,

substituting the Board of Supervisors in place of LSU as the proper defendant.12

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Argument is Moot

LSU, the defendant at the time, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis

that it was not the proper defendant.13 The Board of Supervisors, the proper party, has

since been substituted in place of LSU. Therefore, the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion is denied as

moot.

B. Rule 12(b)(5)

If a plaintiff fails to properly effectuate service, the defendant may seek to dismiss

the plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(5).14 “A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b)(5) turns on the legal sufficiency of the service of process.”15 Rule 12(b)(5) is

8 Rec. Doc. 12-1.

9 Rec. Doc. 18.

10 Rec. Doc. 18-1. See Middle District of Louisiana Local Rule 7(f), requiring opposition to be filed within

twenty-one days of service of the motion. Defendant filed its Motion on July 23, 2025, and Plaintiff filed her

opposition on August 21, 2025.

11 Rec. Doc. 20.

12 Rec. Doc. 21.

13 Rec. Doc. 12-1, pp. 3–5.

14 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) (authorizing a court to dismiss a civil action when service of process is

inadequate).

15 Ceasar v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, No. 17-562, 2018 WL 2090184, at *4 (M.D. La. May 4, 2018) (quoting

Holly v. Metro. Transit Auth., 213 Fed. Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2007)).

applicable to challenges regarding “the mode of delivery or the lack of delivery of the

summons and complaint.”16 The burden of demonstrating the validity of service when an

objection is made lies with the party making service.17

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), “[a] state, a municipal corporation,

or any other state-created governmental organization that is subject to suit must be

served by:

(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief

executive officer; or

(B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for

serving a summons or like process on such a defendant.”18

Louisiana Revised Statute 13:5107(A) provides, “[i]n all suits filed against the state

of Louisiana or a state agency, citation and service may be obtained by citation and

service on the attorney general of Louisiana … and on the department, board,

commission, or agency head or person[.]”19 The statute further provides that “[s]ervice

shall be requested upon the attorney general within ninety days of filing suit.”20

Additionally, La. R.S. 39:1538(D) specifically requires that “process shall be served upon

the head of the department concerned, the office of risk management, and the attorney

general[.]”21

Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating proper service. Plaintiff’s

opposition to Defendant’s Motion was untimely under Local Rule 7(f) and contains no

16 Hodge v. Layrisson, No. 97-555, 1998 WL 564263, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 1, 1998) (quoting Wright & Miller,

Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d § 1353).

17 Holly, 213 Fed. Appx. at 344 (citing Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346

(5th Cir. 1992)).

18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2).

19 La. R.S. 13:5107(A)(1).

20 La. R.S. 13:5107(A)(2).

21 La. R.S. 39:1538(D).

argument regarding service.22 The record reflects that Plaintiff originally requested service

only on LSU, at 8585 Archives Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809.23 Plaintiff did not

attempt to request service on the proper defendant, the Board of Supervisors, until

beyond the ninety-day limit.24 Specifically, Plaintiff requested service on LSU’s general

counsel, which is improper under the directions of Rule 4(j) and La. R.S. 13:5107(A).

Further, there has been no showing that Plaintiff requested service on the attorney

general or the office of risk management as required under La. R.S. 13:5107(A) and

39:1538(D).

La. R.S. 13:5107(D)(2) states that an action “shall be dismissed without prejudice”

if service is not requested within the ninety-day limit.25 Plaintiff has failed to submit any

argument in opposition to dismissal for insufficient service, and there is no evidence that

Plaintiff has attempted to perfect service after the filing of Defendant’s Motion.

Accordingly, the Court finds dismissal without prejudice appropriate.

* * *

22 Rec. Doc. 18-1.

23 Rec. Doc. 1-2, p. 8.

24 Id. at p. 15.

25 Courts have noted that the statute is mandatory. See, e.g., Truxillo v. E. Baton Rouge Sheriff's Off., No.

10-348, 2010 WL 3259372, at *2 (M.D. La. Aug. 16, 2010); Cruz v. Louisiana ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety

and Corrections, 528 F.3d 375, 381 (5th Cir. 2008); Chinn v. Mitchell, 734 So.2d 1263, 1265 (La. App. 1

Cir. 1999).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss26 is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.

The Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is DENIED as moot.

The Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s action is

hereby dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this _1_4_th d a y o f _ _ _ _ J_a_n_u_a_r_y_____, 2026.

S

________________________________

SHELLY D. DICK

CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

26 Rec. Doc. 12.