Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Dismissal of Lawsuit on Service of Process Grounds

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Vargas v. United Modular Enterprises, No. 396 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Nov. 13, 2025 McLauglin, J., Murray, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.,) (Op. by McLauglin, J.) (unpublished), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections after finding that the trial court properly dismissed Complaint as time barred under Lamp v. Heyman service of process grounds.

According to the record before the court, the Plaintiff did not make any attempts at service until about five (5) months after the statute of limitations had run. The court reaffirmed the rule of law that a Defendant’s notice of the action does not matter in the absence of any attempt at service of process. In other words, the court reaffirmed that notice of the lawsuit on the part of the Defendant does not excuse the failure to complete proper service of process.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff’s successful motion for alternative service did not conflict with the subsequent granting of the trial court of the Lamp v. Heyman Preliminary Objections for purposes of the coordinate jurisdiction rule given that the Motions at issue differed in kind.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Nihar Manzalli on www.pexels.com.