Harlem v. Williams, 326 Ga. App. 526

Harlem appeals a trial-court dismissal for failure to exercise due diligence in perfecting service after the statute of limitations expired.
Plaintiff filed suit 11/13/2012 arising from 11/10/2010 accident involving Williams vehicle insured by Easter Williams and driven by an unidentified man.
Service attempts on 11/16/2012 at a Stone Mountain address were ineffective; marshal reported resistance to service.
Defendants answered (1/14/2013) and (1/28/2013) with no explicit service defense; another motion to dismiss followed (3/26/2013).
Harlem claimed service was perfected via a private process server who served 1/19/2013, supported by a January 20, 2013 email and a January 19, 2013 affidavit; the court later dismissed (5/23/2013).
The trial court held that, once the problem with service was known in November 2012, Harlem bore a heightened duty of due diligence; the court relied on Swain v. Thompson and found insufficient evidence of diligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for lack of due diligence was proper	Harlem argues trial court abused discretion by not sua sponte requiring a hearing and by overlooking diligence efforts.	Williamses contend failure to perfect service within the period requires dismissal and due diligence burden with maturity of evasion.	Yes, no abuse; dismissal affirmed.
Whether a hearing was required before dismissal	Harlem did not request a hearing; argues due process would require one.	No hearing is required absent court order; Rule 6.3 permits decision without oral hearing.	Not required; no error in dismissal without a hearing.
Whether Harlem showed sufficient due diligence after learning of service issues	Harlem relied on a private process server's January 2013 service and affidavits.	Plaintiff failed to provide specific dates/details showing diligence; relied on conclusory statements.	No; plaintiff did not meet the specificity/diligence burden.
What standard governs due diligence when service is untimely	Harlem says standard was misapplied.	Burden lies on plaintiff to show reasonable and diligent service once timely filing occurs; elevated duty after awareness of evasion.	Court correctly applied heightened diligence standard.

Swain v. Thompson, 281 Ga. 30 (Ga. 2006) (duty to exercise greatest possible diligence when service is untimely)
Scanlan v. Tate Supply Co., 303 Ga. App. 9 (Ga. App. 2010) (after notice of service problem, heightened due diligence required; reviewable for abuse of discretion)
Wells v. Drain Doctor, 274 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. App. 2005) (plaintiff must provide specific dates or details to show diligence)