Ex parte Stonebridge, LLC, and Hubbard Properties, Inc. [Ms. SC-2025-0364] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2026). The Court (McCool, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and Parker, JJ., concur) reverses the Montgomery Circuit Court’s denial of Hubbard Properties’ Motion to dismiss, directing the court to dismiss Sankey’s complaint with prejudice as being time barred by the statute of limitations.
Erica Sankey was injured on June 17, 2021, when she was struck by a bullet fired from outside her apartment at Stonebridge Apartments, which was owned and managed by Stonebridge, LLC, and Hubbard Properties, Inc. On October 3, 2022, before the two-year statute of limitations expired, Sankey filed a pro se complaint in the form of a personal letter. The filing did not clearly name defendants in the complaint itself, asserted no specific causes of action, included no summonses, and provided no instructions nor a request for service of process. No attempt at service was made. In October 2024—more than a year after the statute of limitations expired—Sankey, then represented by counsel, filed an amended complaint and requested service on the defendants which was thereafter completed. The defendants moved to dismiss the case as time-barred. The trial court denied the motions, and the defendants sought mandamus relief.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus and orders dismissal with prejudice, reiterating that an action is not commenced for statute-of-limitations purposes unless the plaintiff has a bona fide intent to immediately serve process, judged objectively. Sankey’s failure to include summonses, request service, or provide service instructions—and her admission that she did not know service was required—demonstrated a lack of such intent. Listing a defendant’s address alone was insufficient. Because service was not pursued until after the limitations period expired, the claims were time-barred.