Trexler, A. v. McDonald's Corp.
118 A.3d 408
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Alexandra Trexler slipped and fell on Feb 11, 2011 at a McDonald’s restaurant in Pottsville; plaintiffs (Alexandra and Devin Trexler) sued McDonald’s Corporation on Mar 21, 2012 for negligence.
- Plaintiffs served the complaint on the on‑site restaurant manager; McDonald’s filed preliminary objections alleging improper service.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint; plaintiffs’ counsel emailed defense counsel offering to have counsel accept service, but defense counsel said he was not authorized to accept service and identified the franchisee (W. Pace Limited Partnership) as the operator.
- McDonald’s submitted affidavits (managing counsel Bartlett and Wayne Pace) showing McDonald’s Corporation did not own or operate the restaurant and was merely the landlord/franchisor; the franchisee operated the business.
- Trial court treated the service issue as factual under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c)(2), allowed 60 days for discovery, and later sustained McDonald’s preliminary objections for lack of proper service; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Trexler's Argument | McDonald’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was service on the on‑site manager sufficient to serve McDonald’s Corp. under Pa.R.C.P. 424(2)? | Service on the restaurant manager at the physical McDonald’s is service on defendant because it was a McDonald’s location. | The on‑site manager was not McDonald’s Corp.’s employee or authorized agent; service did not satisfy Rule 424(2)/(3). | Held for McDonald’s — plaintiffs failed to show the person served was authorized to accept service for the corporate franchisor. |
| Did affidavits presented by McDonald’s shift burden to plaintiffs to produce contrary evidence? | Plaintiffs argued service provided adequate notice and cited precedent on notice. | McDonald’s argued its affidavits rebut service and therefore plaintiffs must produce evidence to the contrary. | Held for McDonald’s — after defendant’s affidavits plaintiffs had the burden and produced only property‑ownership evidence, insufficient to prove authorization. |
| Were McDonald’s preliminary objections untimely (filed >11 months after amended complaint) under Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a)? | Plaintiffs contended objections were filed over 300 days late and prejudicial after SOL expired. | McDonald’s: timeliness rule counts from service; no service occurred so timing rule did not apply. | Held for McDonald’s — Rule 1026(a) applies only "after service," and because service was not established objections were not time‑barred. |
| Were plaintiffs prejudiced by delay so as to bar McDonald’s objections given statute of limitations? | Plaintiffs argued prejudice because two‑year SOL expired before objections were resolved. | McDonald’s argued plaintiffs failed to timely effect proper service despite having information identifying the franchisee. | Held for McDonald’s — plaintiffs had information and time to effect service or substitute the franchisee but did not; no prejudice-based bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldstein v. Carillon Hotel of Miami Beach, 227 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1967) (service on office that was a regular place of business of defendant sufficed where personnel and operations tied to defendant).
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Servs., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (service rules must be strictly followed; person served must have sufficient connection to defendant to give notice).
- De Lage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Urban P’ship, LLC, 903 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2006) (once defendant presents affidavits challenging jurisdiction/service, burden shifts to plaintiff to rebut).
- Romeo v. Looks, 535 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Super. 1987) (service sufficient if it reasonably notifies defendant, but authorization under Rule 424 remains required).