The Court of Appeals of Georgia has denied a defendant's application for interlocutory appeal in Baratian v. Strickland, Case No. A26I0187, leaving intact a State Court of Gwinnett County ruling that found a plaintiff exercised the greatest possible diligence in perfecting service. The decision, announced by North Atlanta Injury Law PC, carries significant implications for personal injury litigation in Georgia, particularly in cases where defendants attempt to use procedural service defenses to avoid reaching the merits of a claim.
The case arose from an August 2023 rear-end collision in Gwinnett County. The defendant was cited at the scene, and his defense focused not on liability but on the timing of service. Under Georgia law, once a defendant raises a service defense after the statute of limitation has expired, the plaintiff must show she exercised the greatest possible diligence in perfecting service. This demanding standard often ends meritorious cases before any court reaches the facts. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and then sought interlocutory review from the Court of Appeals.
Following a March 2026 hearing, the State Court of Gwinnett County rejected the motion. The court found that "Plaintiff's evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff exercised the greatest possible diligence, such that service after expiration of the limitations period relates back to the timely filing of Plaintiff's complaint." The defendant then sought interlocutory review. On May 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals denied the application, leaving the trial court's ruling undisturbed. The matter was subsequently resolved, with terms not disclosed.
The defense's strategy centered on the calendar rather than the crash. "The defense didn't dispute that their client caused the impact," said Travis J. Little, principal attorney at North Atlanta Injury Law. "Their defense was focused on the calendar. Our answer to that was a record of exactly what we did, every business day, until service was perfected — and the court found it sufficient."
The factual background underscores the challenges plaintiffs face in locating and serving defendants who move frequently. The defendant had recently moved into a subdivided residence near an out-of-state university, where he had been living just a matter of weeks when suit was filed. Asked directly for his address so he could be served, he provided a street number without the unit designation, and certified mail came back with a postal notice indicating no authorized recipient was available. In response, the firm ran two authorized methods of service concurrently — statutory service through the Georgia Secretary of State under the Nonresident Motorist Act, and personal service through the sheriff's office in the county where the defendant was living — and documented work on service every business day from the date of filing until service was confirmed.
The Court of Appeals' denial of interlocutory review means the trial court's finding stands, reinforcing that a well-documented, diligent effort to effect service can satisfy Georgia's strict standard. For personal injury attorneys, the case serves as a reminder that meticulous record-keeping and the concurrent use of authorized service methods can preserve a client's day in court. For defendants, it signals that procedural maneuvers aimed at service may fail when confronted with a clear evidentiary trail of diligence. The ruling also highlights the importance of the Nonresident Motorist Act as a tool for service when a defendant's whereabouts are uncertain or when they have moved out of state.
North Atlanta Injury Law PC is a personal injury firm based in Milton, Georgia, representing individuals and families in automobile and trucking collisions, premises liability, product liability, nursing home negligence, and wrongful death matters throughout the state.
