 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Wiles12/6/2002
either the court where the petition had been filed or a case number.
'5. The moving defendants admit that they received the above letter but deny that the petition or any other documents were attached to it.
'6. Plaintiff's counsel sent another letter to the office of the State Attorney General, Carla Stovall, dated June 30, 1999. In that letter he stated:
"According to your attorney when I served you by certified mail on May 21, 1999, I did not serve you with the Petition and Summons on this case. I am now serving you the Summons and Petition on this case."
Again the face of the letter did not mention the court in which the petition was filed or a case number.
'7. Plaintiff's counsel has never filed a return of service.'
In addition, the court concluded as follows:
'A. The filing of the first case on January 23, 1997, occurred prior to the running of the applicable statute of limitations.
'B. Even though the statute of limitations had expired prior to dismissal of the first case, plaintiff had 6 months from the date of the dismissal in which to re-file the case (or until April 9, 1999) pursuant to K.S.A. 60-518.
'C. Plaintiff filed the petition in the current case on March 5, 1999, within 6 months of the dismissal of her first case.
'D. Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-203(a) the filing of the current Petition on March 5, 1999, would not constitute a tolling of the statute of limitations unless service was obtained within 90 days of the filing of the petition (or within 120 days if the court had granted an extension of this time period for an additional 30 days).
'E. Plaintiff's letter to the Kansas Attorney General dated May 21, 1999, did not constitute service of process as required in K.S.A. 60-303(b). . . .
'F. Any purported service of process by plaintiff on defendants by virtue of the letter of June 30, 1999, was beyond the 90-day period within which service had to be accomplished in order for this action to be deemed filed on the date of the filing of the petition. Since plaintiff's counsel never requested that this 90-day period be extended, the matter was not "commenced" until defendants received the letter of June 30th with enclosures at the very earliest. This clearly was more than six months after the dismissal of the first case.
'G. K.S.A. 60-204 provides that in certain circumstances a party's substantial compliance with the requirements of service of process can be valid service if the party served was:
"made aware that an action or proceeding was pending in a specified court in which his or her person, status or property were subject to being affected."
Here, plaintiff's counsel did not substantially comply with the requirements for service of process since he never forwarded a summons to the defendants nor can he provide proof that he sent them a copy of the petition prior to the running of the statute of limitations. The letter of May 21, 1999, by itself does not adequately notify defendants of litigation against them such that it can be deemed "substantial compliance."'
"7. The Respondent informed Ms. Painter that the case had been dismissed as against the University of Kansas Medical Center and the Kansas State Board of Regents. However, the Respondent failed to inform Ms. Painter that the claims against the University of Kansas Medical Center and the Kansas State Board of Regents were dismissed because he failed to achieve timely service of process.
"8. On August 17, 2001, Montgomery-Kone, Inc., offered to settle the pending claim against it for $5,000.00. Ms. Painter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|