Case Title: SOOY v PETROLANE STEEL GAS INC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-555

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 4 - 5 5 5 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 ARLYN J. SOOY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , PETROLANE STEEL GAS, INC., e t al., D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s , APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of B e a v e r h e a d , T h e H o n o r a b l e Frank D a v i s , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : B u r g e s s , Joyce & Whelan; T h o m a s F. Joyce argued, B u t t e , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : C o r e t t e , Smith, P o h l m a n & A l l e n ; L i s a S w a n argued for Petrolane Steel G a s , B u t t e , Pllontana P o o r e , R o t h & R o b i n s o n ; I. R i c h a r d O r i z o t t i argued for E x x o n C o r p . , B u t t e , M o n t a n a H e n n i n g s o n & P u r c e l l ; J a m e s E. P u r c e l l argued for S h e l l O i l , B u t t e , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : N a y 3 0 , 1 9 3 5 D e c i d e d : $ J o v e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 35 F i l e d : q)J$f" f 1, ; , jf4j$jjj M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Beaverhead County, denying p l a i n t i f f , Arlyn J. Sooy's motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an amended complaint and g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' motions f o r summary judgment. W e r e v e r s e . O n June 19, 1980, Sooy a t t e m p t e d t o l i g h t t h e p i l o t l i g h t on t h e h o t w a t e r h e a t e r i n t h e basement o f h i s home i n Wisdom. An e x p l o s i o n ensued and h e was s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d . O n June 17, 1983, h e f i l e d a complaint i n S i l v e r Bow County. I n t h e complaint Sooy a l l e g e d t h a t he bought propane from P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas, I n c . and P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas S e r v i c e , t h a t t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o add an o d o r i z i n g a g e n t t o t h e propane, and a s a r e s u l t , he could n o t s m e l l t h e e s c a p i n g propane when h e lit t h e match t h a t caused t h e e x p l o s i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas, I n c . and P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas S e r v i c e , Sooy named, by f i c t i t i o u s names, o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s whose n e g l i g e n c e may have caused him i n j u r y . H e a l s o a l l e g e d damages t o h i s r e a l p r o p e r t y . The t w o named d e f e n d a n t s were served on June 2 2 , 1983, and responded on J u l y 1 9 , 1983, by f i l i n g a motion t o di.smiss and t o change venue t o Beaverhead County. The motion t o change venue was g r a n t e d . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , Sooy l e a r n e d t h a t Exxon, S h e l l O i l , P e t r o l a n e Supply and P e r r y Gas P r o d u c t s w e r e t h e r e F i n e r s o f propane f u r n i s h e d t o named d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t t h e y w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d d i n g t h e o d o r a n t t o t h e propane a t t h e r e f i n e r y . T h e r e f o r e , on June 11, 1984, h e had a d d i t i o n a l summons i s s u e d , and t h e summons, a copy o f t h e o r i g i n a l complaint, and n o t i c e w e r e served on June 1 4 , 1984 on G. T. Corporation, t h e designated agent f o r s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s o f t h e f o u r newly discovered defendants. Exxon was made a p a r t y a s John Doe No. 3; S h e l l O i l a s John Doe No. 4; P e t r o l a n e Supply a s John Doe No. 5 , and Perry Gas a s John Doe No. 6. Each o f t h e s e f o u r defendants f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s and moved f o r summary judgment. They argued t h a t none o f them knew o f t h e a c t i o n u n t i l June 14, 1984, and t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had run on Sooy's c l a i m a g a i n s t them on June 19, 1983. O n August 15, 1984, a h e a r i n g was held a t which Sooy moved t o f i l e an amended complaint. The amended complaint changed t h e names o f t h e John Does t o t h e t r u e names o f t h e f o u r c o r p o r a t e defendants, r e a l l e g e d Count One, d e l e t e d Count Two r e l a t i n g t o p r o p e r t y damage, and s u b s t i t u t e d a strict l i a b i l i t y claim a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e f a c t s set f o r t h i n t h e i n i t i a l complaint. O n August 3 0 , 1984, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion t o f i l e an amended complaint and granted defendants' motions f o r summary judgment. Two i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review: (1) Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying Sooy leave t o f i l e an amended complaint. ( 2 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , S 27-2-204, MCA, barred Sooy's claim a g a i n s t Exxon, S h e l l O i l , P e t r o l a n e Supply, and Perry Gas. W e f i n d f i r s t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d err i n denying Sooy leave t o f i l e an amended complaint. Rule 15 ( a ) M.R.Civ.P. provides t h a t "A p a r t y may amend h i s pleading once a s a m a t t e r of course a t any t i m e b e f o r e a responsive pleading is served . . . " A t t h e t i m e Sooy moved f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n amended complaint, d e f e n d a n t s Exxon, S h e l l , P e t r o l a n e Supply, and P e r r y Gas had made no r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g . T h e r e f o r e , a p p e l l a n t should have been allowed t o amend h i s complaint a g a i n s t t h e s e f o u r d e f e n d a n t s r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e c o u r t l a t e r f e l t bound t o g r a n t summary judgment. Defendants P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas, I n c . , and P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas S e r v i c e d i d f i l e r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s and t h u s , a s t o them, a p p e l - l a n t would n o t have been a b l e t o amend h i s complaint " a s a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e . " However, Rule 1 5 ( a ) f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t once a r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g i s served "a p a r t y may amend h i s p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e o f c o u r t or by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y ; - and l e a v e s h a l l be f r e e l y given when j u s t i c e - s o r e q u i r e s . " (Emphasis added.) I n Lien v. Murphy Corporation (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 656 P.2d 8 0 4 , 39 St.Rep. 2252, t h e p l a i n t i f f moved t o amend n i n e y e a r s a f t e r t h e complaint was o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t denied t h e motion t o amend. W e r e v e r s e d , f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was no bad f a i t h , d i l a t o r y motive, o r undue d e l a y on t h e p a r t o f t h e movant. I n a d d i t i o n , w e found t h a t t h e amended complaint stemmed from t h e same o c c u r r e n c e a s t h e o r i g i n a l complaint and would c a u s e o n l y minimal p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a l l o w i n g an amended complaint would n o t have p r e j u d i c e d t h e two d e f e n d a n t s who f i l e d r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s , a s Sooy merely s o u g h t t o add an a d d i t i o n a l t h e o r y o f l i a b i l i t y based on t h e same o p e r a t i v e f a c t s . F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t Sooy's motion t o amend t h e complaint was motivated by bad f a i t h o r a d e s i r e t o d e l a y . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by n o t g r a n t i n g Sooy l e a v e t o amend. With r e s p e c t t o t h e o r i g i n a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s , P ~ t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas, I n c . , and P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas S e r v i c e , t h e amended complaint r e l a t e s back t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e o r i g i n a l complaint a s provided by Rule 1 5 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. The second i s s u e presented by t h i s c a s e r e q u i r e s t h a t w e re-examine Vincent v. Edwards (1979), 184 Mont. 92, 601 P.2d 1184. I n t h a t c a s e when t h e o r i g i n a l complaint was f i l e d t h e p l a i n t i f f had p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d two defendants. Three o t h e r defendants whom t h e p l a i n t i f f had n o t p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d were d e s i c ~ n a t e d by f i c t i t i o u s names pursuant t o § 25-5-103, MCA. When t h e i d e n t i t i e s o f t h e s e t h r e e defendants w e r e discovered t h e p l a i n t i f f moved t o amend t h e o r i g i n a l complaint i n o r d e r t o s u b s t i t u t e t h e r e a l names f o r t h e f i c t i t i o u s names. The motion was granted and an amended complaint was f i l e d . The t h r e e f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants moved f o r summary judgment on t h e grounds t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had run on p l a i n t i f f ' s claim under 5 27-2-204(1), MCA. This Court affirmed t h e summary judgment on a p p e a l , r e l y i n g on t h e p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 1 5 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., a s applying t o f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants. I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e l i e d on o u r holding i n Vincent v. Edwards, i n determining t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had run a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f a s t o t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants. W e r e a l i z e now t h a t i n d e c i d i n g Vincent v. Edwards, w e d i d n o t t a k e i n t o account t h e s t a t u s o f defendants who a r e named a s p a r t i e s under f i c t i t i o u s names when t h e o r i g i n a l complaint h a s been f i l e d . The a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e i s S 25-5-103, which provides: Suing a p a r t y by a f i c t i t i o u s name. When t h e p l a i n t i f f i s i g n o r a n t o f t h e name o f t h e -defendant, such defendant may be designated i n any pleading or proceeding by any name; and when h i s t r u e name i s d i s c o v e r e d , t h e p l e a d i n g s o r p r o c e e d i n g s may be amended a c c o r d i n g l y . No c a s e decided by t h i s C o u r t p r i o r t o V i n c e n t v. Edwards had determined whether a f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t i s a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n from t h e f i l i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l complaint. W e now ho1.d t h a t when a c o m p l a i n t sets f o r t h a c a u s e o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t d e s i g n a t e d by f i c t i t i o u s name and h i s t r u e name i s t h e r e a f t e r d i s c o v e r e d and s u b s t i t u t e d by amendment, t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t i s c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n from i t s commencement s o t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s t o p s r u n n i n g a s t o t h e f i c t i t i o u s p a r t y on t h e d a t e t h e o r i g i n a l complaint i s f i l e d . Accord, see Olden v . Hatchel (Cal. 1 9 8 4 ) , 201 Cal.Rptr. 71.5, 154 Cal.App.3d 1032. But i f p a r t i e s a r e added by amended complaint a s new p a r t i e s and n o t a s p r e s e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d b u t formerly f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s , t h e amended c o m p l a i n t d o e s n o t r e l a t e back t o t h e d a t e o f f i l i n g t h e o r i g i n a l complaint and t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s is n o t t o l l e d a s t o such new p a r t i e s . Anderson v. A l l s t a t e I n s u r a n c e Co. ( 9 t h Cir.Ca1. 1 9 8 0 ) , 630 F.2d 677 ( a p p l y i n g C a l i f o r n i a l a w ) . A l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d p a r t y , formerly sued under a f i c t i t i o u s name, i s a p a r t y from t h e beginning. Freeman v. S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s u r a n c e Co. (Cal. 1 9 7 5 ) , 535 P.2d 341. I n d e c i d i n g Vincent v. Edwards, w e gave an improper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Rule 15 (c) , M.R.Civ.P. That r u l e p r o v i d e s : Relationback o f amendments. Whenever t h e c l a i m o r d e f e n s e a s s e r t e d i n t h e amended p l e a d i n g a r o s e o u t o f t h e conduct, t r a n s a c t i o n , o r o c c u r r e n c e set f o r t h o r attempted t o b e set f o r t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g , t h e amendment r e l a t e s back t o t h e d a t e of t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g . A n amendment changing t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom a claim i s a s s e r t e d r e l a t e s back i f t h e foregoing p r o v i s i o n i s s a t i s f i e d and, w i t h i n t h e period provided by law f o r commencing t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t him, t h e p a r t y t o be brought i n by amendment (I-) has received such n o t i c e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n t h a t he w i l l n o t be prejudiced i n maintaining h i s defense on t h e m e r i t s , and (2) knew o r should have known t h a t , b u t f o r a mistake concerning t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e proper p a r t y , t h e a c t i o n would have been brought a g a i n s t him. . . I t w i l l be seen from a reading o f Rule 1 5 ( c ) , t h a t a n amended c o ~ n p l a i n t r e l a t e s back t o t h e d a t e o f t h e o r i g i n a l pleading when t h e amended pleading depends on t h e same set o f o p e r a t i v e f a c t s a s contained i n t h e o r i g i n a l pleading. The f u r t h e r p r o v i s i o n i n Rule 15 ( c ) , w i t h r e s p e c t t o amendments changing a p a r t y , r e l a t e s t o t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s where t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g t h e claim h a s made a mistake concerning t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e proper p a r t y r a t h e r t h a n when t h e p a r t y is i g n o r a n t o f t h e t r u e i d e n t i t y o f t h e proper p a r t y . Our holding i n Vincent v. Edwards w i t h r e s p e c t t o Rule 1 5 ( c ) d e n i e s t h e s t a t u s o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s p a r t y a s being i n t h e a c t i o n from t h e beginning, and i n c a s e s such a s t h e one a t b a r , robs t h e f i c t i t i o u s name s t a t u t e , S 25-5-103, o f i t s e f f i c a c y . W e f i n d o u r s e l v e s i n agreement w i t h t h e Supreme Court of C a l i f o r n i a i n Barrington v. A.H. Robbins Co. (Cal. 1985), 702 P.2d 563, a t 565, where it s a i d : The relation-back d o c t r i n e h a s been used t o determine t h e t i m e o f cornmencemont of an a c t i o n f o r t h e purpose o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . Normally, t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s commences t o run r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y ' s ignorance o f h i s o r h e r cause o f a c t i o n . ( C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y . ) In Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 15 Cal.Rptr. 817, 364 P.2d 681, w e held t h a t an amended complaint i s n o t b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , even though it s u b s t i t u t e s a named p a r t y f o r a f i c t i t i o u s d e f e n d a n t , i f t h e amended complaint r e l a t e s back t o a t i m e l y o r i g i n a l complaint. Reasoning t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t p r e j u d i c e d by t h e f i l i n g o f an amendment a f t e r t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d had e l a p s e d , we observed t h a t "a d e f e n d a n t unaware o f t h e s u i t a g a i n s t him by a f i c t i t i o u s name i s i n no worse p o s i t i o n i f , i n a d d i t i o n t o s u b s t i t u t i n g h i s t r u e name, t h e amendment makes o t h e r changes i n t h e a l l e g a t i o n s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e same genera1 set o f f a c t s . . . ." ( C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y . ) Conversely, "a p l a i n t i f f who d i d n o t know o f t h e t r u e name a t t h e t i m e t h e o r i g i n a l complaint was f i l e d . . . h a s a t l e a s t a s g r e a t a need f o r t h e l i b e r a l i t y o f amendment . . . a s a p l a i n t i f f who knew t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s name t h r o u g h o u t , and h e should n o t b e p e n a l i z e d merely because he was compelled t o resort t o h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f u s i n g a f i c t i t i o u s name." W e t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e o u r h o l d i n g i n Vincent v. Edwards, s u p r a , and d e t e r m i n e t h a t when a f i c t i t i o u s p a r t y i s l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d , t h e amendment s e t t i n g f o r t h h i s t r u e name r e l a t e s back t o t h e d a t e o f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g . I n t h i s c a s e , it means t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had n o t r u n a g a i n s t t h o s e f i c t i t i o u s d e f e n d a n t s who where l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i r t r u e names. There i s p r o t e c t i o n f o r f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f o u r Rule 4 1 (e) , M.R.Civ.P. Under t h a t r u l e any d e f e n d a n t who h a s n o t appeared i n t h e a c t i o n o r who h a s n o t been served w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e h a s CLC~~D.I* - J ~ H 1 : ! + 5 been commenced i s e n t i t l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l . Moreover, un er t h a t r u l e , u n l e s s summons s h a l l have been i s s u e d w i t h i n one y e a r o f t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n a d e f e n d a n t is e n t i t l e d t o d i s m i s s a l . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n was f i l e d on June 17, 1983. The a d d i t i o n a l summons a g a i n s t t h e newly i d e n t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t s was i s s u e d on June 11, 1 9 8 4 , w i t h i n t h e one y e a r p e r i o d . W e t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e summary judgments g r a n t e d i n t h i s c a s e and remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n accordance w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . FJe concur: n n : < j ' ' 7