In
the case of Mandarano v. Plink, No.
18-CV-2099 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 8, 2019 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Lamp v. Heyman, service of process
issues in a premises liability action.
According
to the Opinion, the Plaintiff commenced this premises liability action one day
prior to the expiration of the two (2) year statute of limitations and served
the President of the Defendant limited liability company with original process
at its principal place of business on a timely basis under the Rules of Civil
Procedure. However, service was improperly completed by a private detective agency rather
than the Sheriff as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 401, et seq.
After
the Defendant company filed a Preliminary Objection asserting improper service
of process and seeking a dismissal based upon the expiration of the statute of
limitations, the Plaintiff reinstated the Complaint and had it timely served by
the Sheriff upon that company’s President at the same principal place of
business.
The Defendant company asserted in its Preliminary Objections that this action was barred by
the statute of limitations due to the Plaintiff’s alleged failure to make a
good faith effort to effectuate proper service of original process.
 |
| Judge Terrence R. Nealon Lackawanna County |
After
reviewing the law of Lamp v. Heyman
and its progeny, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas found that the record was devoid of any indication
that the Plaintiff intentionally acted in a manner that was designed to stall
the judicial machinery by delaying the proper service of process. The court also
found that the Defendant company had not identified any prejudice that it
allegedly suffered as a result of the Plaintiff’s defective service of original
process previously by a detective instead of a Sheriff.
The
court also noted that, since the Defendant company’s officer was furnished with
timely notice of the filing of this suit, the purpose of the statute of
limitations had been satisfied in this case.
As
such, the Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant company seeking the
dismissal based upon improper service of original process were overruled.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.