Milani v. Pablo

The plaintiff's did not satisfy their burden of showing that they acted with the greatest possible diligence in attempting to serve the defendant outside the statute of limitation.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitation, Gregory Milani and Jeanette Milani “appellants” brought suit against Andres Pablo, an uninsured motorist, seeking damages that arose when his motorcycle hit their vehicle. After a hearing, the trial court revoked its earlier order allowing for service by publication and granted Pablo’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Appellants had not acted diligently in attempting to serve personally him. Appellants contest this order on appeal, and for the reasons below, we affirm.

On April 24, 2009, four days before the statute of limitation expired,1 the appellants filed the instant suit against Pablo for injuries they sustained on April 28, 2007, when Pablo’s vehicle hit their motorcycle. On May 1, 2009, a sheriff’s deputy filed a “non est” return of service, writing on the return that the “address was not good.” On May 7, 2009, appellants searched for Andres Pablo on two websites, 411.com and Intelius People Search Report, but the search was limited to Georgia addresses. On May 8, 2009 and May 19, 2009, appellants sent certified letters to the three addresses located by the websites. All of the letters were returned as undeliverable. On May 18, 2009, an answer was filed by special appearance on behalf of Pablo, and on June 15, 2009, his counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on insufficiency of service and expiration of the statute of limitation. Appellants filed motions for service by publication and for the appointment of a special process server on July 9, 2009, and both motions were granted the same day before opposing counsel had time to respond. After a hearing on Pablo’s motion to dismiss, the trial court issued an order dismissing the appellant’s complaint for want of service and held that the order allowing service by publication should not have been granted.

Milani v. Pablo

The plaintiff's did not satisfy their burden of showing that they acted with the greatest possible diligence in attempting to serve the defendant outside the statute of limitation.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report