The Court of Appeals of Georgia has denied a defendant's application for interlocutory appeal in Baratian v. Strickland, Case No. A26I0187, according to an announcement from North Atlanta Injury Law PC. The decision leaves intact a ruling from the State Court of Gwinnett County that favored the firm's client. The case, arising from an August 2023 rear-end collision in Gwinnett County, centered not on liability but on the timing of service. The defendant was cited at the scene, and his defense focused on whether he had been served quickly enough. He filed a motion for summary judgment and then sought interlocutory review from the Court of Appeals.
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 is a demanding standard that often ends meritorious cases before any court reaches the facts. Following a March 2026 hearing, the State Court of Gwinnett County rejected the motion, finding 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 implications of this ruling are significant for personal injury litigation in Georgia. It reinforces the importance of meticulous documentation when plaintiffs face service challenges after the statute of limitations has run. The defense did not dispute that their client caused the impact, according to Travis J. Little, principal attorney at North Atlanta Injury Law. "Their defense was focused on the calendar," Little said. "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 highlights the obstacles plaintiffs can encounter. 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. The firm documented work on service every business day from the date of filing until service was confirmed.
This case underscores that even when a defendant's location is transient or ambiguous, a plaintiff can meet the "greatest possible diligence" standard through persistent, daily efforts and thorough record-keeping. The Court of Appeals' denial of review means the trial court's finding stands, providing a useful precedent for plaintiffs navigating similar service disputes. For more information about the firm's practice areas, including automobile and trucking collisions, premises liability, product liability, nursing home negligence, and wrongful death matters, visit their website. The firm represents individuals and families throughout Georgia. The outcome in Baratian v. Strickland serves as a reminder that procedural diligence can be as critical as the merits of a claim, and that courts may uphold such efforts even after the limitations period has expired.
