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 after the statute of limitations had expired. The decision, announced by North Atlanta Injury Law PC, means the case will proceed to resolution on the merits, and it underscores the critical importance of documented, relentless efforts to serve a defendant in Georgia personal injury litigation.
The case arose from an August 2023 rear-end collision in Gwinnett County. The defendant was cited at the scene. Rather than contest liability, 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—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. 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 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 service challenge was complicated by the defendant's recent move to a subdivided residence near an out-of-state university, where he had been living just 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. 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 appellate denial carries implications beyond this single case. It reinforces that Georgia courts will closely examine a plaintiff's efforts to locate and serve a defendant, and that a detailed, daily record of those efforts can satisfy even the stringent "greatest possible diligence" standard. For personal injury victims and their attorneys, the ruling signals that aggressive service defenses may fail when confronted with thorough documentation, allowing cases to move forward to resolution. The case also highlights the risks defendants face when they provide incomplete address information, as such actions can extend the timeline for service without automatically dooming the plaintiff's claim.
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.
