Thought Leadership

In deciding whether a complaint served after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations period was time-barred, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania applied the reasoning from Gussom v. Teagle, 247 A.3d 1046 (Pa. 2021). When there is a factual dispute as to whether a plaintiff fulfilled the duty to make a good faith effort in diligently and timely serving process on a defendant, a plaintiff has the evidentiary burden to demonstrate that he/she met this good faith duty. If a plaintiff fails to meet this evidentiary burden, then actual notice of the lawsuit is irrelevant.

The plaintiff slipped and fell in the defendant’s restaurant on August 26, 2018, and, on March 4, 2020, filed the original complaint within the two-year statute of limitations period. The plaintiff forwarded instructions and payment to the Sheriff to serve the complaint, but service was not completed. In May 2020, after the complaint lapsed and without reinstatement, the plaintiff retained a private process server to deliver the complaint to the defendant, which was completed. The plaintiff knew that this did not constitute proper service of process but took this action to provide the defendant with notice of the lawsuit. On November 3, 2020, two and a half months after the expiration of the applicable limitations period, the plaintiff reinstated the complaint, and on November 30, 2020, the Sheriff served the reinstated complaint on the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the argument that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred, which the trial court denied. The defendant filed an interlocutory appeal, which the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. The defendant then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

In analyzing the appeal, the Supreme Court applied the analytical framework from Gussom v. Teagle. The Supreme Court held that when a defendant presents a factual dispute as to whether a plaintiff fulfilled the duty to make a good faith effort in diligently and timely servicing process on a defendant, the plaintiff then carries the evidentiary burden to demonstrate that he/she met this good faith duty. The Supreme Court found that “[w]hen a plaintiff makes diligent but technically improper efforts to timely serve process whereby a defendant receives actual notice during the period of the statute of limitations that a lawsuit had been filed against it, the plaintiff will not be punished by dismissal of the complaint for technical non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.” However, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff fails to meet the burden of demonstrating good faith effort in diligently and timely serving process, then actual notice of the lawsuit is irrelevant. The Supreme Court reasoned that it had “never held that any notice to a defendant of the pendency of a lawsuit is a substitute of process.” The Supreme Court explained that its “allowance of a deviation from strict compliance with our service rules when notice is imparted to the defendant is tied to a good faith effort to comply with the Rules.” 

The Supreme Court ruled that, besides forwarding the complaint and payment to the Sheriff for service, the plaintiff made no efforts to inquire about or perfect service until after the statute of limitations period had expired. The court found that the plaintiff produced no evidence to account for the lack of effort to effectuate service. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s decision to deliver the complaint to the defendant via a process server was not merely technical non-compliance but, instead, a full nonconformity with the Rules because there was never an intent to comply with them. The court noted that the plaintiff’s counsel understood that the private process service would not effectuate service of process under the Rules. As such, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that she met the good faith duty, and thus, the defendant’s actual notice of the complaint was irrelevant. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}