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 trial court ruling that found a plaintiff exercised the "greatest possible diligence" in perfecting service. The decision, announced by North Atlanta Injury Law PC, underscores the stringent evidentiary requirements plaintiffs face when a defendant challenges service after the statute of limitations has expired—and the consequences for personal injury litigation in Georgia.
The case stems from an August 2023 rear-end collision in Gwinnett County. The defendant was cited at the scene. His defense did not contest fault; instead, he 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 limitations 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.
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, but 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 hinged on the calendar, according to Travis J. Little, principal attorney at North Atlanta Injury Law. "The defense didn't dispute that their client caused the impact," Little said. "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 illustrates the challenges of service. The defendant had recently moved into a subdivided residence near an out-of-state university, where he had been living for only weeks when suit was filed. When 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.
The appellate court's denial of review matters because it reinforces the trial court's interpretation of the "greatest possible diligence" standard and highlights the importance of meticulous documentation in service disputes. For plaintiffs' attorneys, the ruling signals that a detailed, daily record of service efforts can satisfy even the most demanding standard, potentially preserving otherwise vulnerable claims. For defendants, it serves as a reminder that procedural challenges to service may fail when confronted with thorough evidence of diligence. The case also demonstrates how the Nonresident Motorist Act can be used alongside traditional service methods to ensure defendants are properly served, even when they are temporarily out of state. As personal injury litigation continues to evolve, this decision may influence how attorneys approach service in cases where defendants attempt to evade or delay it. North Atlanta Injury Law PC, 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 firm's success in this case underscores the critical role of procedural rigor in achieving favorable outcomes for clients.
