# Call

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · August 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11421964

## Case

- **Full name:** Alexander “Jake” Call v. Louisiana State University, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** August 18, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11421964

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11421964. Public record. Not legal advice.