Another plaintiff gets bounced out of court for failure to timely serve a summons and complaint.
In Brairs v. Irving, No. W2022-01159-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2023), Plaintiffs sued for injuries and damages allegedly resulting from an automobile accident. Although the complaint was filed within one year of the accident, the original summons went unserved, and plaintiffs did not obtain issuance of new process until over a year after the issuance of the previous process. The result? Case dismissed, and dismissal affirmed.
Here is a summary of the law as stated by the Court:
Under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]n action is commenced within the meaning of any statute of limitations upon such filing of a complaint, whether process be issued or not issued and whether process be returned served or unserved.” TENN. R. CIV. P. 3. But, if process either “remains unissued for 90 days or is not served within 90 days from issuance, regardless of the reason,” a plaintiff must do more in order for the filing of the complaint to toll the statute of limitations. Id. If process was not issued for 90 days after the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff must continue the action by obtaining issuance of process “within one year of the filing of the complaint.” Id. If process was issued but not served within 90 days of issuance, the plaintiff must “continue[] the action by obtaining issuance of new process within one year from issuance of the previous process.” Id.
Id. at * 2-3.