eNotes: Liability – January 2024 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Federal Case Summary

London-Walker v. Walgreens Family of Cos.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179610

Decided: October 4, 2023

Under Pennsylvania law, service of original process cannot be accomplished by emailing a copy of a Writ of Summons to a claims adjuster.

Background

Plaintiff London-Walker allegedly tripped on a defective floor mat on December 23, 2016, at a Walgreens store located in Coatesville, PA. Thereafter, on December 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit via Writ of Summons in the Court of Commons Pleas for Delaware County. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed a copy of that Writ to a claims adjuster with Sedgwick CMS, the claim administrator for Walgreens. Thereafter, the matter was not actively pursued by Plaintiff until proper service of process occurred on Walgreens on May 30, 2023.

Walgreens removed the matter to Federal Court on July 27, 2023. Walgreens also filed a Motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, since Plaintiff waited four and half years to serve the Writ of Summons upon it. Incidentally, Plaintiff did not file a response to that Motion.

Holding

Judge Kenney of the Eastern District granted Walgreens’ Motion to dismiss. The Court noted that the applicable statute of limitations was two years. The Court also recited the events of the case, indicating the case’s inception in December of 2018, leading to a finding that under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Writ needed to be served within thirty days. The Court also noted that service does not always occur timely and, therefore, a Writ can be reissued. However, Judge Kenney explained that the law was clear that dismissal is appropriate in those cases where a Plaintiff demonstrated an intent to stall the judicial machinery, or where Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure prejudiced a defendant.

The Court found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that she had acted in good faith and, therefore, the matter was dismissed. Incidentally, the Court also noted that Plaintiff had not even filed a Response to the pending Motion to dismiss, which further evidenced her lack of good faith in the litigation. In closing, the Court found that the seven year delay between the alleged incident giving rise to the suit and Defendant’s receipt of notice of the action, with a five year delay between when the initial Writ was issued and when Defendant received notice, had substantially affected Walgreens’ ability to defend itself in the action, since much of the evidence regarding the underlying events may have been destroyed in the intervening years.

Questions about this case can be directed to Ryan C. Blazure at (570) 825-3867 or rblazure@tthlaw.com.