The plaintiff, Linda Taylor, was bitten by the defendant’s dog on June 8, 1978. At the time, she was a minor and, under Iowa Code section 614.8, the statute of limitations on her claim was tolled until one year following her majority. That date was December 8, 1984. On December 7, 1984, Taylor filed her petition in district court-together with an original notice. Her attorney at that time, Michael Megan, did not include directions for service of the notice, however, as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a). An original notice was not served on the defendant until some seven months later; in the meantime, the statute of limitations had expired.
Wiebold filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the filing of the petition alone, without the accompanying instruments required by rule 49(a) (primarily directions for service of original notice) did not constitute a commencement of the action for purposes of the statute of limitations. The district court, relying on our case of Scieszinski v. City of Wilton, 270 N.W.2d 450 (Iowa 1978), held that the filing of the petition did not constitute a commencement of the action under the circumstances of this case, and held the claim was barred. We reverse and remand.
Under our practice predating 1975, an action was “commenced” by serving the defendant with an original notice, without regard to when the petition was filed. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 48 (1975). In 1975, the pertinent rules were changed. Rule 48 now provides that an action is commenced “by filing a petition with the court.” Present rule 55, moreover, says this with respect to statutes of limitations:
For the purpose of determining whether an action has been commenced within the time allowed by statutes for limitation of actions, whether the limitation inheres in the statutes creating the remedy or not, the filing of a petition shall be deemed a commencement of the action.
Despite the language of rule 55 we held in Scieszinski that a statute of limitation could not be avoided by the filing of a petition if there was an intentional failure to serve the original notice. In Scienszin-ski, the plaintiff had filed his petition within the limitations period. At the time it was filed, however, he also filed a motion and an ex parte order requiring the clerk to seal the petition, motion, and order. Later, after the statute of limitations had expired, the plaintiff attempted to reactivate the case. The district court ruled it was barred by the statute of limitations, and we affirmed. In the present ease, the defendant relies heavily on Scieszinski to support the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.
Scieszinski, however, made it clear that it was to be applied very narrowly, in cases where the failure to comply with rule 49(b) is intentional. We noted the harshness of the old rules requiring service of the notice in order to commence an action and emphasized the desirability of tying the com*130mencement of the action to the filing of the petition as provided by the 1975 amendment. We then said:
We have no intention to retreat from the advance made in the [1975] amendment. Here however we have an unusual case. We do not have a bungle by a clerk while processing papers or a botch by an officer in delivering them. We have an intentional bypass by a plaintiff of some of the steps for starting an action — the requirements for contemporaneously placing in the clerk’s hands the petition and the notice papers and for prompt delivery of those papers by the clerk to the serving officer. The plan for starting actions contemplates that ordinarily the defendants will promptly learn of the action, but this objective is defeated if the plaintiff intentionally makes its accomplishment impossible.
Scieszinski, 270 N.W.2d at 452.
An analogous federal rule provides that: [u]pon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons and deliver the summons to the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney, who shall be responsible for prompt service of the summons and a copy of the complaint. Upon request of the plaintiff separate or additional summons shall issue against any defendants.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a) (emphasis added).
As we noted in Scieszinski, federal cases interpreting the “forthwith” language of this rule, and its predecessor, have drawn a distinction between those cases in which the delay is traceable to a plaintiffs intentional act and those where the delay is attributable to other causes. Scieszinski, 270 N.W.2d at 453. See also 4 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1086, at 341-43 (1969).
Here, there was no evidence of an intentional delay on the part of the plaintiff; Scieszinski is therefore not controlling. Based on rules 48 and 55, we hold that the filing of the petition in this case commenced the action within the period of limitations.
We are mindful of the argument by Wie-bold that, to allow a statute of limitations to be avoided under these circumstances would tend to frustrate the speedy disposition of eases. On the other hand, rules 48 and 55 are clear; an action is commenced by filing of the petition, at least in the absence of intentional delay.
In any event, this result does not leave a defendant, or the court, without a remedy. For example, federal cases have ordered dismissal of actions for failure to timely serve notice under the provisions of the federal dismissal statute, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the federal counterpart to our rule 216. See generally Wright & Miller, supra, § 1086, at 341-42 (sanctions for failure to comply with service requirements). Also, a case such as this may be subject to dismissal under our mandatory dismissal rule, Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1, under which the running of the time for trial begins with the filing of the petition rather than the service of notice.
We conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Justices concur except WOLLE, J., who dissents.