Thursday, May 9, 2024

Plaintiff Provided Additional Opportunities To Complete Service


In the case of Chanthanasinh v. LZ Holding Pennsylvania, LLC, No. 1500-CV-2022 (C. P. Monroe Co. April 5, 2024 Zulick, J.), the court denied a Preliminary Objection by a Defendant regarding service of process issues. The court otherwise ordered the Plaintiff to obtain service of the Complaint on the Defendants if that had not yet been accomplished. The court additioanly noted that, if the Plaintiff is unable to complete service within sixty (60) days, the Plaintiff was ordered to file a Motion for Special Service.

This matter arose out of a slip and fall incident.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had attempted service on the owner of the hotel premises through the Sheriff on multiple occasions. However, it was later established during a hearing on the issues presented that the named Defendant in this case was not the owner at the time some individual had accepted service of the process earlier in the case.

In an effort to show diligent efforts to advise the Defendant of the incident in the lawsuit, the Plaintiff offered evidence that he and his family had communicated with representatives of the hotel on multiple occasions regarding the incident and medical bills. It was also noted that Plaintiff’s counsel had sent correspondence, by certified mail, to the hotel manager regarding the incident and the injuries alleged. At the hearing, it was acknowledged that the representatives of the hotel had received counsel’s letter.

It was additionally indicated that Plaintiff’s counsel had corresponded with an insurance company that was allegedly the Defendant’s workers’ compensation carrier, including providing that company with the copy of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff’s counsel also pointed to the multiple efforts to have the Sheriff’s office complete service.

In this case, the court noted that the Defendant has admittedly known for a extended period of time that the Plaintiff had filed suit against them. The court also found that the Plaintiff acted diligently and made good faith efforts to have service completed by the Sheriff’s Department. The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff had properly relied upon a Sheriff’s Affidavit that good service had been obtained.

As such, the court denied the Preliminary Objection based upon lack of proper service and directed the Plaintiff to take additional steps to fully complete service of process.

In another notable part of his Opinion, Judge Zulick addressed the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff should be made to separate out the claims against the 10 Defendants into separate Counts, one for each Defendant so that the Defendants could respond fully to the claims presented.

Judge Zulick went against the trend of decisions in this regard that typically grant such a request for separate Counts for each Defendant by ruling that, here, that rule did not apply since because the Plaintiff had sued the Defendants jointly, alleging liability jointly, such that separate pleadings or Counts against each Defendant were not necessary.  

The Court noted that, where there is only one cause of action asserted, separate Counts were not necessary.  Here, the Plaintiff alleged negligence as a result of a fall down event and asserted that all of the Defendants were owners of the premises where the accident occurred. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.