McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia
585 Pa. 211, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 3083, 888 A.2d 664 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's technically defective service of process tolls the statute of limitations if the plaintiff has made a good faith effort to provide notice, which is evaluated by determining whether the plaintiff intended to stall the judicial process or if the defendant was prejudiced by the defective service.
Facts:
- On August 14, 2000, a tree growing on property owned by the City of Philadelphia fell on a truck driven by Charles F. McCreesh, allegedly causing him serious injury.
- On August 12, 2002, two days before the two-year statute of limitations was set to expire, McCreesh commenced litigation by filing a Praecipe to Issue a Writ of Summons.
- On August 13, 2002, McCreesh attempted to serve the writ on the City Law Department by sending it via certified mail.
- A receptionist at the City Law Department signed for and received the package containing the writ, providing the City with actual notice of the lawsuit.
- The service by certified mail did not comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in Philadelphia, which required service to be made by the sheriff or a competent adult.
- On November 8, 2002, after the statute of limitations had run, McCreesh filed a complaint, had the writ reissued, and properly served the City Law Department by hand delivery.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles F. McCreesh sued the City of Philadelphia in the trial court by filing a Praecipe to Issue a Writ of Summons.
- The City filed preliminary objections, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations because McCreesh's initial service of the writ was improper.
- The trial court overruled the City’s preliminary objections, finding McCreesh had made a good faith effort.
- The City petitioned the Commonwealth Court (an intermediate appellate court) for permission to appeal the trial court's interlocutory order, which was granted.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court, holding that the failure to comply with service rules meant McCreesh did not satisfy the good faith requirement, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case.
- McCreesh (Appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, with the City of Philadelphia as Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's technically defective, but good faith, attempt to serve original process toll the statute of limitations where the defendant receives actual notice of the lawsuit and is not prejudiced by the delay in proper service?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baer
Yes. A plaintiff's action should not be dismissed for a technically defective service of process if the plaintiff made a good faith effort to provide notice, did not intend to stall the legal proceedings, and the defendant received actual notice and was not prejudiced. The purpose of the seminal 'Lamp' rule was to prevent plaintiffs from abusing procedural rules to stall litigation, not to punish them for non-prejudicial technical missteps. Adopting a flexible approach over a rigid, strict-compliance standard aligns with the principle that procedural rules should be liberally construed and errors disregarded if they do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Here, McCreesh provided the City with actual notice before the statute of limitations expired and did not demonstrate an intent to stall the judicial machinery. Therefore, the case should not be dismissed unless the City can show it was prejudiced by the delay in proper service.
Dissenting - Justice Newman
No. A plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules regarding service of original process precludes a finding that they acted in good faith sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. Good faith under the 'Lamp' rule requires, at a minimum, compliance with the established rules for service of process. In this case, the method of service effectuated by McCreesh clearly did not comport with the specific rules for service in Philadelphia. Therefore, he did not act in good faith, the statute of limitations was not tolled, and the action should be dismissed.
Dissenting - Justice Eakin
No. A plaintiff must comply with the clear rules of service to satisfy the good faith requirement, and the majority's new rule improperly conflates 'notice' with 'service.' The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are clear and provide the sole means of proper service. The majority's flexible standard amounts to a 'no harm, no foul' rule that abandons controlling precedent from 'Lamp' and 'Farinacci,' which require compliance with local practice to ensure prompt service. McCreesh failed to follow a basic, straightforward rule and offered no explanation for his failure, which demonstrates a lack of good faith and warrants dismissal of his claim as time-barred.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant split among lower Pennsylvania courts by formally adopting a flexible, fact-based standard over a rigid, bright-line rule for what constitutes a 'good faith effort' in serving process. It shifts the focus from strict technical compliance with procedural rules to the substantive questions of plaintiff's intent and prejudice to the defendant. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to secure dismissals based on non-prejudicial procedural errors in service, thereby prioritizing the resolution of claims on their merits. Future litigation in this area will now center on factual determinations of intent and prejudice rather than on objective compliance with service rules.
