NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

BILLY HOWARD EZELL, Judge.

Zoltan Boka appeals the decision of the trial court granting Dr. John Oller's exception of insufficient service, thereby dismissing Mr. Boka's suit. For the following reasons, we hereby affirm the decision of the trial court.

Mr. Boka filed the current suit making several tenuous allegations of fraud that allegedly arose out of conversations he had with Dr. Oller concerning another professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Mr. Boka also had a suit against the university that has apparently been dismissed. At times, Mr. Boka conflated the two suits, making arguments pertaining to the other and even involving parties not present in the current litigation. Mr. Boka claims that Dr. Oller had a duty to voluntarily assist him in his struggle against ULL and/or that his failure to do so was part of a conspiracy to somehow defraud him. Throughout the history of this suit, Mr. Boka never requested that service of his original petition be made upon Dr. Oller. After roughly two years, Dr. Oller filed an exception of insufficiency of service of process. Dr. Oller's exception was heard on August 22, 2011. Mr. Boka was allowed to present evidence and argue his case. At the close of argument, the court concluded that the law and evidence were in favor of Dr. Oller and specifically found that Mr. Boka had not properly requested service of process, that service was ultimately made out of time, and that there was no good cause for delay. Judgment was rendered on August 30, 2011, in favor of Dr. Oller, dismissing Mr. Boka's claims. From that decision, Mr. Boka appeals.

Mr. Boka asserts twelve assignments of error on appeal. Many are not salient in any way to the litigation at hand. The remainder concern the trial court's granting of Dr. Oller's exception of insufficiency of service of process. Because service is the main issue before this court, we will address it first.

The manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review is applicable when a trial court dismisses an action for failure to timely perfect service of process. Johnson v. Brown, 03-679 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/25/03), 851 So.2d 319; Patterson v. Jefferson Davis Parish Sch. Bd., 00-580 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 773 So.2d 297. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1201 states (emphasis added):

Many of Mr. Boka's attacks on the judgment below are allegations of procedural defects in the exception itself and in the trial court's ruling. We can find none.1 Moreover, a request for service simply cannot be found in the record before this court. In fact, it is clear from a review of the record that service of citation for the suit was never requested by Mr. Boka.2 While service of the suit was eventually made upon Dr. Oller, it was nearly two years after the suit began and was still not done at Mr. Boka's request, but by the clerk of court on his own in conjunction with serving Dr. Oller notice of a hearing date. Even had this been at Mr. Boka's behest, it would have been far outside the ninety days required by La.Code Civ.P. art. 1201. Further, the record contains no evidence of good cause for failure to request service, as Mr. Boka clearly knew Dr. Oller's address. Accordingly, there was no manifest error in the trial court's dismissal of his claims under the requirements of La.Code Civ.P. art. 1201. Because his suit was properly dismissed, any remaining assignments of error need not be addressed, as they are rendered moot by the dismissal of Mr. Boka's suit.

For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Mr. Boka.

AFFIRMED.