Call

oUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDER “JAKE” CALL CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, ET NO. 25-00810-BAJ-EWD

AL.

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(4) And 12(b)(5) (Doc. 25), seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against

Defendants Louisiana State University (“LSU”) and the Board of Supervisors of the

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“Board of

Supervisors”). Defendants LSU and the Board of Supervisors contend that: (1) LSU

must be dismissed as a Defendant because it lacks the legal capacity to be sued; and

(2) the Board of Supervisors should be dismissed as a Defendant because Plaintiff has

failed to effectuate service of process on it. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Doc. 31). For

the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

I, BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this case in September 2025 against LSU, the Board of

Supervisors, and other Defendants. (Doc. 1). The Court issued summons to all

Defendants in September 2025. (Doc. 8). However, Plaintiff did not serve Defendants

with the summons and Complaint within the ninety days required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

A(m). Plaintiff did not request an extension of time to effect service, so in January

2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the claims should not be

dismissed as abandoned under Local Rule 41(b)(1)(A), which authorizes the Court to

dismiss a civil action where no service of process has been made within ninety days

after the filing of the Complaint. (Doc. 15). After the Court issued the show cause

order but before it held the show cause hearing, Plaintiff served LSU with the

summons and Complaint. (Doc. 16). At the January show cause hearing, the Court

granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to serve all other Defendants, indicating

that failure to serve Defendants may result in a swa sponte dismissal of the claims

against the unserved Defendants. (Doc. 19). Defendants LSU and the Board of

Supervisors then filed the instant Motion to Dismiss in February 2026. (Doc. 25).

Later that month, after Plaintiff still had not served the unserved Defendants, the

Court issued another show cause order to Plaintiff. (Doc. 28). In March, the Court

eranted Plaintiff an additional 30 days—that is, until April 8, 2026—to file adequate

service information into the record for any unserved Defendants. (Doc. 33). The Court

also indicated that failure to timely file service information could result in dismissal

of Plaintiffs claims against the unserved Defendants without further notice. (Doc.

38). Plaintiff still has not filed service information for the unserved Defendants as of

August 2026.

I. ANALYSIS

A. LSU.

LSU is named as a Defendant in this case. However, LSU lacks the legal

capacity to be sued. See, e.g., Williams v. La. State Univ. & A&M Coll., No. 22-12,

2022 WL 1110305, at *1 (M.D. La. Apr. 18, 2022); Habbal v.

La. State Univ. Health Science Center, No. 6:24-cv-00720, 2025 WL 991108, at * 1

(W.D. La. April 2, 2025). Therefore, claims against LSU are subject to dismissal under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff concedes that LSU is not capable of

being sued independently. (Doc. 31 at 5). Accordingly, claims against LSU as a named

Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

B. Board of Supervisors.

Next, the Board of Supervisors contends that Plaintiffs claims against it must

be dismissed because Plaintiff has not yet served it with the summons and Complaint,

despite ample opportunity to do so.

“A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) turns on the legal sufficiency of

the service of process. The party making service has the burden of demonstrating its

validity when an objection to service is made. The district court has broad discretion

in determining whether to dismiss an action for ineffective service of process.”

Trimble v. Strength, No. CV 20-355-JWD-SDJ, 2022 WL 636729, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan.

25, 2022) (cleaned up). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant

is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court ... must dismiss

the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made

within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). “[I]f the plaintiff shows good cause for

the failure [to timely effectuate service], the court must extend the time for service

for an appropriate period.” Rroku v. Cole, 726 F. App’x 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2018).

“TG]ood’ cause under Rule 4(m) requires at least as much as would be required

to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or

ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice.” Gartin v. Par Pharm. Co.,

289 F. App’x 688, 692 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that a delay of seven months in serving

one of the defendants is a clear record of delay). Despite these timing constraints,

“TR]ule 4(m) broadens a district court’s discretion by allowing it to extend the time for

service even when a plaintiff fails to show good cause.” Thompson v. Brown,

91 F. 3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff has not yet served the Board of Supervisors, despite the ninety-day

deadline imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff does not contest

that the Board of Supervisors has not been served. Rather, Plaintiff argues that Rule

12(b)(5) motions to dismiss have been denied where service defects are curable (citing

Williams, 2025 WL 1180718, at *3 (M.D. La. Apr. 28, 2025)); Lindsey v. U.S. R.R. Ret.

Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff also avers that dismissal is not

appropriate, given ongoing efforts to effect service. (Doc. 31 at 1-2) (“Service upon the

remaining defendants has required additional coordination due to the number of

individually named defendants and the procedural requirements governing service

upon state-affiliated entities and employees. Plaintiff continues to work with process

servers to complete service on the remaining defendants.)

Plaintiff has had ample opportunity and time over the past year to serve

Defendants, and has appeared before this Court multiple times to explain the failure

to do so. The Court has extended multiple warnings that the failure to serve

Defendants may result in dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against them. The Court is

not convinced that the failure to serve Defendants is due to anything more than

“simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules[,]’ Gartin,

289 F. App’x at 692, as plaintiffs in other actions before this Court have successfully

and expeditiously served the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the Court will dismiss

Plaintiffs claims against the Board of Supervisors and all other unserved

Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant LSU

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against all remaining

Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this of August, 2026

'

(ha.

“hat

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA