Court Grants Summary Judgment in Slip-and-Fall Action

The useful part

In a recent decision, summary judgment was granted in favor of the firm's client, Defendant J.M.P. First, Plaintiff failed to timely serve the Amended Complaint after being permitted to add JMP as a defendant. Although the Court's November 7, 2025, Order required service within fourteen days of filing, Plaintiff did not serve JMP until February 17, 2026—well after the February 6, 2026, discovery end date had already expired.

How it works

• As a result, JMP was brought into the case only after the close of discovery.
• Second, JMP argued that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
• Third, JMP argued that it would suffer substantial prejudice if the claims were permitted to proceed.
• Plaintiff initially opposed the motion by arguing that extraordinary circumstances prevented timely service and separately moved to extend discovery on the same basis.
• At oral argument, Plaintiff further attempted to avoid dismissal by relying on a misidentification theory to support application of the relation-back doctrine.

What to take from it

By Order dated June 1, 2026, the Court granted JMP's motion for summary judgment.

Details worth keeping

JMP argued that dismissal was warranted on three independent bases. Specifically, JMP maintained that the Amended Complaint was filed more than one year after the statute of limitations had expired and that Plaintiff could not rely on either the relation-back doctrine or fictitious-party practice to cure the untimely pleading. Plaintiff's late service, which occurred after the discovery end date, effectively deprived JMP of the ability to participate in discovery, pursue written discovery, conduct depositions, retain experts, or otherwise meaningfully develop its defense.