Timing Is Everything: The Dog Bite Case That Took a Bite Out of Procedural Rules

From the Desk of Ashley Nagrodski:

After a long journey through the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, Pecelj v. Sparks was finally dismissed by the King County Superior Court when the plaintiffs failed to serve their complaint in a timely manner and properly commence their case after tolling the statute of limitations. First, the defendants won an initial dismissal in the trial court and defeated the plaintiffs’ subsequent motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, finding that the plaintiffs had tentatively tolled the statute of limitations by filing the complaint and serving summonses, but questions remained as to whether the plaintiffs’ service of the complaint seven (7) months after filing was considered timely and diligent.

Claims Pointer:

This case revolves around the plaintiffs’ compliance with tolling the statute of limitations and subsequent procedural rules for proper and timely service of process. The appellate court emphasized the distinction between tentatively tolling an action and properly commencing it under court rules and caselaw. The trial court made findings on whether the plaintiffs acted with diligence and in a timely manner in serving the correct complaint.

Pecelj v. Sparks, 556 P3d 179, 182 (Wash Ct App 2024)

Facts:

Daryl and Nadine Pecelj (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit for injuries resulting from a dog bite incident that occurred on April 24, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 17, 2023, just before the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. Shortly thereafter, they served defendants Derek Sparks and Sam Vongphonthong (“Defendants”) with summonses and a different complaint. The served complaint differed from the one filed in court, as it omitted allegations against a third defendant, Johnathan Mercado. The Defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing the statute of limitations had not been properly tolled because the Plaintiffs failed to serve the operative complaint within the statutory 90-day tolling period. The trial court agreed with Defendants and dismissed the action with prejudice. On appeal, the Plaintiffs contended they had sufficiently tolled the statute of limitations and commenced the case by filing the operative complaint, serving the summonses, and then serving the operative Complaint seven (7) months later in November 2023.

The appellate court held that the Plaintiffs were successful in tentatively tolling the statute of limitations, but that Washington State Civil Rules and existing caselaw precedent require plaintiffs to properly commence their action by serving the operative filed complaint with diligence and timeliness. While the tolling period is unspecified, it is not infinite or indefinite; therefore, plaintiffs are required to proceed with their cases in a timely manner. The appellate court determined it did not have enough information within the record to determine whether the Plaintiffs acted in a diligent and timely manner in this case, and reversed and remanded to the trial court.

On remand, the trial court determined that Plaintiffs did not act in a timely and diligent manner when they filed the operative complaint and served the summons just before the statute of limitations expired, and then waited seven (7) months before serving the operative complaint. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs failed to show good cause for the delay, as they could not point to any extenuating circumstances or events outside their control which would have prevented timely service of the proper complaint.    

Law:

Under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 4.16.080, personal injury claims must be initiated within three years. RCW 4.16.170 provides a mechanism for tolling the statute of limitations, requiring either the filing of a complaint or the service of a summons within the statutory period. A 90-day grace period is then afforded to complete the remaining action.

Tolling refers to the legal suspension or extension of the running of a statute of limitations, which is the deadline for initiating a legal claim. When tolling occurs, the time during which the statute of limitations is paused and is not counted against the time limit for filing the claim, allowing a plaintiff more time to meet the requirements necessary to pursue their case. In this context, filing a lawsuit and commencing a suit for tolling purposes are distinct actions.

Civil Rules (CR) 3 and 4 govern the commencement of actions and the sufficiency of service. CR 3 provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint or serving both a summons and complaint. CR 4 requires the summons and complaint to be served together, and it mandates that the complaint served must match the complaint filed in court. Failure to comply with these rules may result in dismissal, even if tolling is initially achieved.

Filing a lawsuit occurs when a plaintiff submits a complaint to the court, officially initiating the legal process. However, for tolling to apply under Washington’s RCW 4.16.170, a plaintiff must either: 1) serve the summons and complaint before the statute of limitations runs, and then file the summons and complaint within 90 days of service; or 2) file the complaint before the statute of limitations runs, and then serve the summons within 90 days of filing. Failure to complete these requirements in a timely manner means the action is treated as if it were never commenced for tolling purposes.

Pecelj v. Sparks offered further clarification on two previously unanswered questions under RCW 4.16.170: first, whether the plaintiff must still serve the complaint after she has filed the complaint and served the summons to toll the action in compliance with RCW 4.16.170, and second, how long the plaintiff is permitted to wait between filing the complaint to tentatively toll the action and completing service of the complaint to properly commence the action. The courts concluded that the plaintiff must still serve the complaint after the action was tentatively tolled, and the plaintiff must do so in a diligent and timely manner.

Analysis:

The appellate court held that the Plaintiffs satisfied the statutory tolling requirements by filing their complaint and serving summonses within the 90-day grace period provided under RCW 4.16.170. However, the court noted that the initial served complaint did not match the filed complaint, which rendered the original service procedurally deficient under CR 4. Under the civil rules and controlling caselaw, plaintiffs must still serve the operative complaint to ultimately commence the case after if has been initially tolled.

Although the plaintiffs later served the correct complaint seven months after filing, the question of whether plaintiffs acted in a timely manner so as to properly commence the case remained. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to assess whether this subsequent service was timely and diligent. Specifically, the Court here does not contain findings of fact by the trial court as to whether, under Civil Rules 3 and 4, RCW 4.16.170, and Supreme Court case law, including Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wn.2d 325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 (1991), the Plaintiffs served the Defendants with sufficient process and in a timely manner so as to properly commence this action and thereby obtain personal jurisdiction over the affected defendants. On remand, the trial court was tasked with determining whether the November service was accomplished with sufficient diligence and timeliness to satisfy these procedural requirements and fully commence the case. The trial court ultimately held that the Plaintiffs did not meet the requisite diligence and timeliness when they served the complaint seven (7) months after filing; therefore, they failed to commence the case, resulting in a second dismissal with prejudice.

Big Picture:

The decision in Pecelj v. Sparks underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements in civil litigation. While tolling the statute of limitations can preserve a claim, proper service of process is equally vital to securing jurisdiction and avoiding dismissal. The remand emphasizes the trial court’s role in resolving factual disputes about the timeliness and diligence of service. Moving forward, this case serves as a reminder for practitioners and agents of carriers to ensure precise compliance with both statutory and procedural mandates to safeguard their clients’ claims.