Georgia Appeals Court Denies Interlocutory Review in Service Dispute, Upholding Trial Court Ruling for North Atlanta Injury Law Client

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 ruling from the State Court of Gwinnett County in favor of North Atlanta Injury Law's client. The decision, announced by the firm, resolves a dispute that centered not on liability but on the timing of service of process.

The case arose from an August 2023 rear-end collision in Gwinnett County. The defendant was cited at the scene. 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 ends many 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 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. Terms are 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 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. 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.

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.

For Texas businesses and legal professionals, the case highlights the critical importance of procedural diligence and comprehensive documentation in litigation. It serves as a reminder that even when liability is clear, cases can hinge on strict adherence to service requirements, and a well-documented record can make the difference between proceeding to the merits and having a case dismissed. The ruling reinforces that plaintiffs who methodically pursue service through all available means can overcome aggressive procedural challenges, ensuring that meritorious claims are heard on their facts.