Johnson, T. v. Austin, A.
Johnson, T. v. Austin, A. No. 1122 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 19, 2017Background
- Johnson sued Austin for negligence arising from a July 17, 2013 motor‑vehicle accident; statute of limitations expired July 17, 2015.
- Complaint filed June 11, 2015; first service attempt June 13, 2015 at Austin’s last known address; Austin’s father said Austin did not live there and gave no current address.
- Johnson retained a private investigator (CIS) on July 9, 2015 to locate Austin but did not tell CIS the limitations deadline and had no further contact with CIS for ~3 months.
- CIS ran searches and contacted the Postal Service; reports in October–November 2015 indicated the Postal Service still listed the Zeralda address.
- Johnson sought DMV information in early November 2015 and later moved for alternative service; service by posting and mail was completed December 9–16, 2015 (nearly five months after the limitations date).
- Austin moved for judgment on the pleadings under Lamp v. Heyman, arguing service was untimely and Johnson failed to make a good‑faith effort; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff made a good‑faith effort to effectuate service under Pa.R.C.P. 401/Lamp | Johnson: filed within limitations, promptly attempted service, hired investigator, and did not stall process | Austin: plaintiff failed to act diligently (investigator not informed of deadline, long delay in follow‑up, delayed motion for alternative service) | Court held plaintiff did not act in good faith; judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether dismissal is improper because defendant suffered no prejudice from delayed notice | Johnson: no prejudice resulted; cites McCreesh flexible actual‑notice approach | Austin: no actual notice; so McCreesh inapplicable; prejudice analysis unnecessary | Court held McCreesh inapplicable because no actual notice; did not reach prejudice question |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (writ remains effective only if plaintiff refrains from conduct that stalls legal machinery)
- Farinacci v. Beaver County Indus. Dev. Auth., 511 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1986) (interpreting Pa.R.C.P. 401 to require good‑faith effort to notify defendant)
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (flexible approach: excusing defective service when defendant had actual notice and no prejudice)
- John T. Gallaher Timber Transfer v. Hamilton, 932 A.2d 963 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Englert v. Fazio Mech. Servs., 932 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2007) (good‑faith requirement is not limited to intentional delays; neglect or mistake can defeat good faith)