A Pennsylvania Court determined that a plaintiff’s good faith attempts to effectuate service tolled the statute of limitations.
In Mandarano v Plink, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Lackawanna County heard an interesting case regarding a failure to comply with the Pennsylvania service statute. In Mandarano, the Plaintiff commenced a premises-liability action one day before the statute of limitations expired by serving the President of the Defendant company via a detective agency. Under Pa.R.C.P. 400(a), original service in Pennsylvania is only to be effectuated by a Sheriff. As a result, the Defendant filed preliminary objections seeking that the complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 400(a). The Defendant argued the statute of limitations is tolled only if the plaintiff makes a good faith effort to effectuate service of process on the opposing party, which he argued did not occur. Plaintiff countered, stating that Pa.R.C.P. 126 enables a court to “disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
In analyzing the situation, the Court first relayed the standard for evaluating untimely service. To warrant the dismissal of an action based upon the untimely service of original process, the record must reflect that either (1) plaintiff demonstrated an intent to stall the judicial machinery by delaying the proper service of process, or (2) the defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to comply with the procedural rules governing service. The type of prejudice required to warrant a dismissal based upon improper service of process involves a “substantial diminution of the defendant’s ability to present factual information in the event of trial which has been brought about by plaintiff’s delay” in the proper service of original process. The Court found no evidence of any prejudice nor that the plaintiff intentionally acted in a manner that was designed to stall the judicial process. Moreover, since the Defendant’s officer was furnished with timely notice of the filing of this suit, the Court found that the purpose of the statute of limitations was satisfied.
This case poses an interesting situation, where the specific requirements of a statute were not met, but where the Plaintiff’s action complied with the spirit and purpose of the statute. Most states contain statutes and regulations allowing Courts to disregard any defect of procedure that does not prejudice another party. The Defendant could not provide any evidence that he was prejudiced, and the Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in his lawsuit. There was no-harm, and, thus, the Court found no-foul.
Thanks to Malik Pickett for his contribution to this post. Please email Colleen E. Hayes with any questions.