According to the Opinion, following the subject motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on December 4, 2023.
The Monroe County Sheriff issued an Affidavit of Return showing that no personal service was made on the Defendant at his/her last known address, which service was attempted on December 28, 2023.
There was then no further docket activity until May 8, 2024 when the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file for special service on or before August 6, 2024 because the docket did not reflect an affidavit of successful service of process.
On September 10, 2024, the Plaintiff’s attorney filed a Praecipe to Reissue the Writ of Summons. The Defendant was served thereafter on September 24, 2024.
The Plaintiff then filed a Complaint on January 14, 2025. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections seeking to dismiss the action due to the statute of limitations.
In his Opinion, Judge Zulick provided a detailed review of the law of the statute of limitations and the law regarding proper and prompt service of original process.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a Writ of Summons on the day that the statute of limitations were set to expire on the end of that day. Looking at the record before it, the Court found that date Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that a good faith effort was made to complete service.
Plaintiff’s counsel pointed to the fact that he was out of the office for a period of time during 2024 due to medical issues and he also sited an error made by his office staff who thought that the Sheriff’s Affidavit filed on December 28, 2023 showed that service had been completed.
The Court noted that, despite these statements, the Plaintiff was put on notice by the Court’s Case Management Order of May 8, 2024 which specifically advised that service was not complete. That Order also directed the Plaintiff to complete service or file a Motion for Special Service by August 6, 2024. According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff did not comply with those Orders and, as such, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Plaintiff acted diligently in attempting to complete service on the Defendant with notice of the lawsuit.
Consequently, the Court ruled that the case must be dismissed due to the bar of the statute of limitations.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 14, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on www.pexels.com.