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 the plaintiff exercised the "greatest possible diligence" in perfecting service. The decision, announced by North Atlanta Injury Law PC, means the case—arising from an August 2023 rear-end collision in Gwinnett County—can proceed, and it underscores the critical importance of service of process in personal injury litigation.
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—a demanding standard that often ends meritorious cases before any court reaches the facts. In this case, the defendant's motion for summary judgment focused solely on whether he had been served quickly enough. 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, which the Court of Appeals denied on May 6, 2026, leaving the trial court's ruling undisturbed. The matter was subsequently resolved, with terms not disclosed.
The case highlights the procedural hurdles plaintiffs face when defendants challenge service. According to the firm, 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 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."
For business leaders and legal professionals, the ruling reinforces that diligent, documented service efforts can withstand aggressive procedural challenges. It also serves as a reminder that defendants cannot evade liability through technical service defenses when plaintiffs demonstrate unwavering diligence. The case, handled by North Atlanta Injury Law PC, a personal injury firm based in Milton, Georgia, represents individuals and families in automobile and trucking collisions, premises liability, product liability, nursing home negligence, and wrongful death matters throughout the state.
The Court of Appeals' denial of interlocutory review means the trial court's finding stands, allowing the case to proceed to resolution. This outcome may encourage plaintiffs' attorneys to meticulously document service efforts, while defendants may reconsider using service timing as a primary defense strategy. For the broader legal and business community, the decision affirms that Georgia courts will uphold the "greatest possible diligence" standard when evidence supports it, ensuring that cases are decided on their merits rather than procedural technicalities.
