Ali, M. v. Amoroso, A.
Ali, M. v. Amoroso, A. No. 1127 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- In May 2007 Ali gave Davis Acura a check that was returned for insufficient funds; Middletown Township officers Amoroso and McGinty filed a criminal bad-check charge.
- The bad-check prosecution was nolle prossed by the Commonwealth in May 2011 after Ali was convicted of unrelated murder in Philadelphia.
- Ali filed a civil malicious-prosecution complaint on March 14, 2013 (within two years of the nolle pros) but made no efforts to effect service until reinstating and sending the complaint to the sheriff in September 2014; service occurred in October 2014.
- Defendants raised the statute-of-limitations defense; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Ali failed to toll the limitations period under Lamp by timely making a good-faith effort at service and also failed to adduce evidence of lack of probable cause.
- Ali appealed pro se, arguing the action was not time‑barred, discovery was incomplete, material facts were disputed, and defendants lacked probable cause. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ali's malicious‑prosecution claim was time‑barred | Ali argued his complaint (filed within two years) was timely | Defendants argued the statute was not tolled because Ali failed to promptly effect service after filing | Court held action was time‑barred because Ali did not make a good‑faith effort to serve; tolling did not occur until reinstatement after limitations ran |
| Whether defendants failed to comply with discovery order | Ali contended defendants did not complete discovery as ordered | Defendants showed they timely sought a hearing and the court heard discovery disputes before ruling | Court held discovery contention lacked merit; docket shows defendants requested a hearing and complied with the process |
| Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment | Ali claimed conflicting evidence created material issues for a jury | Defendants argued Ali produced no evidence on essential elements (lack of probable cause, malice) | Court held no material factual dispute: Ali failed to produce admissible evidence to support lack of probable cause or malice |
| Whether officers lacked probable cause to arrest/charge Ali | Ali relied on testimony and exhibits he said showed lack of probable cause | Defendants pointed to returned check, dealership complaint, and affidavit of probable cause approved by the magisterial judge | Court held probable cause existed as a matter of law on the record; Ali produced no verified statements undermining probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (service requirement: filing alone does not toll statute; plaintiff must make good‑faith efforts to effect service)
- Cahill v. Schults, 643 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. 1994) (service of process required to commence action for tolling)
- Englert v. Fazio Mechanical Services, Inc., 932 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summarizes Lamp and standards for good‑faith service efforts)
- Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star Express, 725 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (once action is commenced, statute is tolled only if plaintiff makes a good‑faith effort to effect service)
- Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2004) (good‑faith service inquiry is fact‑specific; neglect can defeat tolling)
- Farinacci v. Beaver County Industrial Development Authority, 511 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1986) (court reviews whether plaintiff made good‑faith effort to effectuate service)
- Bigansky v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 658 A.2d 423 (Pa. Super. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden to show service efforts were reasonable)
- Harris v. NGK N. Am., Inc., 19 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Super. 2011) (statement of summary‑judgment standard and appellate review)
- Jones v. Levin, 940 A.2d 451 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary‑judgment standard guidance)