Jo Worley sued The Winter Construction Company and Big Dog Demolition, Inc., for injuries sustained when she tripped over a pipe at a construction site inside Perimeter Mall. Worley filed the complaint electronically. Winter Construction received notice of the lawsuit by certified mail, and filed an answer. In its answer, Winter Construction asserted the defenses of insufficiency of service of process and expiration of the statute of limitation. Winter Construction filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, reasserting those defenses. Winter Construction filed and served the motion electronically. Big Dog Demolition 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 from both judgments. 1. Worley contends the trial court erred in granting Winter Construction’s motion to dismiss with prejudice when Winter Construction failed to serve its motion to dismiss in the manner required by OCGA § 9-11-5. Specifically, Worley complains that: a the statute does not permit service only by e-mail; and b Winter Construction’s attorney misled the trial court by indicating in his certificate of service that he served her with the motion by U. S. mail. This enumeration is without merit.
OCGA § 9-11-5 b permits pleadings subsequent to the original complaint to be served by e-mail transmission provided that certain requirements are met. Despite Worley’s claim, the statute does not require that pleadings served by e-mail also be served by U. S. mail. Worley does not claim that any of the statute’s electronic delivery requirements were not met. Worley has shown no grounds for reversal.1
