On November 2, 2007, Jo Worley filed a complaint against The Winter Construction Company and Big Dog Demolition, Inc., alleging that on November 19, 2005, she was injured when she tripped over a pipe at a construction site inside Perimeter Mall. Worley did not formally serve Winter Construction with the summons. Rather, she notified Winter Construction of the lawsuit and asked that it waive formal service. Among other things, the notice stated that if Winter Construction did not waive service, Worley would take the appropriate steps to effect formal service. Winter Construction did not waive service, and the two-year statute of limitations expired on November 19, 2007. A month later, Winter Construction filed an answer which asserted the defenses of insufficiency of service of process and expiration of the statute of limitation. Thereafter, Worley still did not perfect service of the summons on Winter Construction, and on May 21, 2008, Winter Construction filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment due to the lack of service and expiration of the statute of limitations. Big Dog Demolition also filed an answer and moved for summary judgment. The trial court dismissed the action against Winter Construction with prejudice and granted summary judgment to Big Dog Demolition. Worley appeals. 1. Worley contends that the trial court erred in granting Winter Construction’s motion to dismiss because the motion was served on Worley by e-mail under the trial court’s electronic filing system, which did not comply with the version of OCGA § 9-11-5 in effect at the time of the motion.1 However, even if this actual e-mail notice was deficient under the version of the code section then in effect, we will affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the action if it is right for any reason.2
“Where there has been no service of a suit, or waiver thereof, the necessity of service is not dispensed with by the mere fact that the defendant may in some way learn of the filing of the suit.”3 Thus, even though Winter Construction learned of the lawsuit, it did not waive formal service of process, and Worley was required to comply with the necessity of such service. In that regard, OCGA § 9-11-4 c provides that when service is to be made within this state, the person making such service shall make the service within five days from the time of receiving the summons and complaint; but failure to make service within the five-day period will not invalidate a later service. It is undisputed that no such later service was ever attempted upon Winter Construction. It follows that no valid suit was instituted against Winter Construction. Relation back is, indeed, irrelevant.4 Consequently, since no valid suit was instituted against Winter Construction, the trial court’s dismissal of such an invalid action was proper regardless of Winter Construction’s alleged by deficient service of its motion to dismiss and the trial court’s judgment shall be affirmed under the right for any reason rule.5
