Alabama practitioners know that the two-year clock is often the whole ballgame in premises/security cases and other tort suits. In Ex parte Stonebridge, LLC, and Hubbard Properties, Inc. (SC-2025-0364), the Alabama Supreme Court held that a case is not “commenced” unless the plaintiff files with bona fide intent to have the complaint immediately served. The distinction between “filed” and “commenced” can be decisive.
In Ex parte Stonebridge, the plaintiff filed something closer to a personal letter than a formal complaint arising from a shooting incident at an apartment complex. She included a civil cover sheet and partially identified a defendant and an address, but she did not include summonses, provide service instructions, or request service at the time of filing.
The first meaningful activity occurred almost two years later, followed by an amended complaint with summonses and requests for certified mail service. The defendants moved to dismiss under the two-year SOL, arguing that the action was not commenced for limitations purposes because the original filing lacked the necessary intent to have it served immediately. The trial court denied the motions.
On mandamus, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and directed dismissal with prejudice. The Court reiterated a line of cases holding that commencement for SOL purposes requires more than dropping papers with the clerk. The plaintiff must file with a bona fide intent to have the complaint served right away, and courts evaluate that intent under an objective standard.
Here, the objective facts were: no summonses, no service instructions, and no service efforts for nearly two years. That was enough to defeat commencement. This is the kind of opinion that belongs in every defense lawyer’s “early dispositive” folder because it addresses a common plaintiff-side reality:
- Pro se or placeholder filings made near the end of limitations;
- Administrative delay where nothing is done to get defendants served;
- Later lawyered-up amendments that try to “relate back” to a filing date that, in practical terms, didn’t start anything.
When that pattern exists, you may have a clear path to an early exit by focusing on “commencement” rather than the filing date.
Equally important for strategy is the Court’s confirmation that mandamus review is available under a limited exception for certain SOL defenses—useful when a trial court denies a motion to dismiss despite a limitations defect apparent from the record.
Jim Pattillo is a member of Christian Small, LLP’s Product Liability Practice Group. He is leading litigation counsel for insurance, product, and commercial clients and is based in the firm’s Birmingham, Alabama, office. Mr. Pattillo represents numerous commercial and personal insurers in matters involving bad faith, extra-contractual exposure, coverage litigation, and a variety of declaratory judgment actions. He also works closely with large SIU investigations on fraud-related matters. Mr. Pattillo focuses exclusively on litigation and trial work. He has a twenty-year trial record in the courtroom that is extensive and successful, including numerous seven and eight-figure exposures with results routinely exceeding client expectations.
About Christian & Small
Christian & Small LLP serves a diverse client base across Alabama, the Southeast, and nationwide, including individuals, closely held businesses, and Fortune 500 companies. By pairing highly experienced lawyers with specific client needs, Christian & Small creates innovative, effective, and efficient solutions tailored to each client. With offices in Birmingham, metro-Jackson, Mississippi, and the Gulf Coast, Christian & Small specializes in litigation and business law, is a member of the International Society of Primerus Law Firms, and is a Mansfield Rule™ Certified Plus Law Firm. Our corporate social responsibility initiatives focus on education, and diversity remains one of Christian & Small’s core values.
No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.