Case Title: Weaver v. Firestone

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 01/11/2013 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1101403 
Carl Weaver 
v. 
Roger D. Firestone 
Appeal from Coosa C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-10-900025) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
C a r l Weaver 
a p p e a l s 
t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
d e n i a l o f h i s 
m o t i o n t o 
d i s m i s s t h e 
c o m p l a i n t 
f i l e d a g a i n s t him 
by 
Roger D. 
F i r e s t o n e . 
We r e v e r s e and 
remand. 
F a c t s 
1101403 
In May 1995, F i r e s t o n e , C h a r l e s T. Amberson, J r . , 
and 
D a r r e l l Thomas were a s s a u l t e d , b a t t e r e d , and burned. 
Amberson 
and 
Thomas 
d i e d 
from 
t h e i r 
i n j u r i e s ; 
F i r e s t o n e 
s u f f e r e d 
e x t e n s i v e p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s and i n c u r r e d over $1,000,000 i n 
m e d i c a l 
expenses. 
I n August 2012, C h a r l e s 
R i c h a r d 
T o o l e y , 
L.C. C o l l i n s , J r . , and M i c k i e Wayne C o l l i n s p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o 
a t t e m p t e d murder as t o F i r e s t o n e . 
On August 20, 2012, F i r e s t o n e 
sued Weaver; 
T o o l e y ; 
C o l l i n s , J r . ; C o l l i n s ; and f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s A-M. I n 
h i s c o m p l a i n t , 
F i r e s t o n e a l l e g e d t h a t i n 
t h e s p r i n g o f 1995 he 
was i n j u r e d when Weaver, T o o l e y , 
C o l l i n s , J r . , 
and 
C o l l i n s 
c o n s p i r e d t o 
"maim, t o r t u r e , and k i l l " h i m ; 
committed t h e t o r t 
of o u t r a g e ; committed an a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y on h i s p e r s o n ; 
and a t t e m p t e d t o murder him. 
R e c o g n i z i n g 
t h a t h i s 
causes o f a c t i o n were f i l e d 
o u t s i d e 
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s , F i r e s t o n e a v e r r e d i n h i s 
c o m p l a i n t : 
"On August 9, 2010, T o o l e y , M. 
C o l l i n s , and 
C o l l i n s , J r . 
p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o a t t e m p t e d murder o f 
[ F i r e s t o n e ] . 
I t was n o t u n t i l 
t h i s 
d a t e 
t h a t 
[ F i r e s t o n e ] 
d i s c o v e r e d 
t h e 
i d e n t i t y 
o f 
t h e 
[ i n d i v i d u a l s ] who had a t t a c k e d him because o f t h e 
f r a u d u l e n t 
concealment o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y 
and t h e 
i d e n t i t y o f t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s . [ F i r e s t o n e ] a v e r s t h a t 
d e s p i t e d i l i g e n t e f f o r t s , he c o u l d n o t d i s c o v e r t h e 
2 
1101403 
i d e n t i t y of h i s a t t a c k e r s 
b e f o r e 
August 9, 2012. 
[ F i r e s t o n e ] 
has 
s i n c e 
August 
9, 
2012, 
f u r t h e r 
d i s c o v e r e d 
t h e i d e n t i t y of Weaver and h i s r o l e i n 
t h i s m a t t e r . [ F i r e s t o n e ] a v e r s t h a t none of t h e a c t s 
of [Weaver, T o o l e y , M. C o l l i n s , and C o l l i n s , J r . , ] 
are 
b a r r e d 
by 
t h e 
s t a t u t e 
o f 
l i m i t a t i o n s . 
[ F i r e s t o n e ] 
a v e r s 
t h a t 
t h i s 
a c t i o n 
i s 
b r o u g h t 
a g a i n s t [ t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s ] w i t h i n t h e time 
a l l o w e d 
by Alabama law f o r b r i n g i n g 
an 
a c t i o n 
f o l l o w i n g 
d i s c o v e r y 
of 
f a c t s w h i c h have been 
f r a u d u l e n t l y 
c o n c e a l e d by d e f e n d a n t s . [ F i r e s t o n e ] f u r t h e r a v e r s 
t h a t any o t h e r w i s e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s 
has 
been 
e q u i t a b l y 
t o l l e d 
u n t i l 
t h e 
r e a s o n a b l e 
e f f o r t s of [ F i r e s t o n e ] t o d i s c o v e r t h e i d e n t i t y o f 
[ t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s ] 
and t h a t [ F i r e s t o n e ] has b r o u g h t 
t h i s 
a c t i o n i n t h e time a l l o w e d 
by law f o l l o w i n g 
such d i s c o v e r y . 
[ F i r e s t o n e ] f u r t h e r a v e r s t h a t no 
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s 
case 
under Alabama 
law because i t i s an 
a c t i o n f o r 
damages f o r maiming and a t t e m p t e d murder w i t h the 
r e l e v a n t 
f a c t s 
o f 
t h e 
i d e n t i t y 
of 
[ t h e s e 
i n d i v i d u a l s ] d e l i b e r a t e l y c o n c e a l e d as a p a r t o f a 
c o n s p i r a c y by [ t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s ] 
t o maim and murder 
[ F i r e s t o n e ] and 
o t h e r s . " 
On 
September 
24, 
2010, 
Weaver 
moved 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
F i r e s t o n e ' s c o m p l a i n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., and §§ 6-2-34 and 6-2-38, A l a . 
Code 1975. 
In h i s m o t i o n , 
Weaver 
argued 
t h a t 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
c l a i m s 
were 
b a r r e d 
by t h e 
a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n s 
and d i d 
not f a l l w i t h i n any 
t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n . 
A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g on Weaver's motion t o d i s m i s s , 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d e n i e d Weaver's m o t i o n , c o n c l u d i n g 
t h a t the 
s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s had been 
t o l l e d . 
3 
1101403 
On O c t o b e r 17, 2011, t h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d Weaver p e r m i s s i o n 
t o a p p e a l t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s 
motion t o d i s m i s s . 
See R u l e 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"The 
a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w under 
R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , 
A l a . R. 
C i v . P.,] i s 
whether, 
when 
t h e 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
o f t h e 
c o m p l a i n t a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n 
t h e 
p l e a d e r ' s 
f a v o r , 
i t appears 
t h a t 
t h e 
p l e a d e r 
c o u l d 
prove 
any 
s e t 
o f 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
t h a t would 
e n t i t l e h e r t o 
r e l i e f . 
R a l e y 
v. 
C i t i b a n c 
o f 
A l a b a m a / A n d a l u s i a , 
474 So. 2d 640, 641 
( A l a . 1985); 
H i l l v. F a l l e t t a , 589 So. 2d 
746 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) 
. I n making 
t h i s 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t does n o t c o n s i d e r 
whether 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f 
w i l l 
u l t i m a t e l y 
p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y whether she may p o s s i b l y 
p r e v a i l . 
F o n t e n o t v. B r a m l e t t , 470 So. 2d 
669, 671 ( A l a . 1985); R i c e v. U n i t e d 
I n s . 
 
Co. o f A m e r i c a , 465 So. 2d 1100, 1101 ( A l a . 
1984). 
We 
note 
t h a t 
a R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) 
d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t appears 
beyond doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can prove 
no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m 
t h a t would e n t i t l e t h e p l a i n t i f f t o r e l i e f . 
G a r r e t t v. Hadden, 495 So. 2d 616, 617 
( A l a . 1986); 
H i l l v. K r a f t , I n c . , 
496 So. 
2d 768, 769 ( A l a . 1986).' 
"'Nance v. Matthews, 
622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 
1993)." 
DGB, LLC v. H i n d s , 55 So. 3d 218, 223 ( A l a . 2010). 
A n a l y s i s 
4 
1101403 
Weaver contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n 
d e n y i n g 
h i s 
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s F i r e s t o n e ' s c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t him because, 
he 
s a y s , 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e 
s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s and do not f a l l w i t h i n any t o l l i n g 
p r o v i s i o n . 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
i s m i n d f u l 
t h a t 
" [ b ] e c a u s e 
s t a t u t e s o f 
l i m i t a t i o n s a r e 
a n e c e s s a r y means o f e n s u r i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y 
of t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g 
p r o c e s s , 
a c o u r t must e x e r c i s e 
g r e a t 
c a u t i o n when a p a r t y 
seeks t o apply" 
t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n s . 
T r a v i s v. Z i t e r , 681 So. 2d 1348, 1352 ( A l a . 
1996). 
Hence, 
" [ a ] d i s m i s s a l based on t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s p r o p e r 
o n l y i f , from t h e f a c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , i t 
i s a p p a r e n t t h a t 
the t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n s do n o t a p p l y . " 
T r a v i s , 681 So. 2d a t 
1351 ( c i t i n g W i l l i a m s v. Capps T r a i l e r S a l e s , 589 So. 2d 159, 
160 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . 
The e v e n t s g i v i n g r i s e t o F i r e s t o n e ' s causes o f a c t i o n 
o c c u r r e d i n 
May 1995. I t 
i s 
u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t F i r e s t o n e knew 
i n 
May 1995 t h a t he had been i n j u r e d . 
Y e t , F i r e s t o n e d i d 
n o t 
f i l e h i s c o m p l a i n t 
u n t i l August 2012, more than 17 y e a r s 
l a t e r . 
I t 
i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t a l l 
t h e c l a i m s a r e o u t s i d e 
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s . See §§ 6-2-34 and 6-
5 
1101403 
2-38, 
A l a . Code 1975. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
i s asked 
t o 
d e t e r m i n e whether 
t o l l i n g 
of 
the 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d s 
f o r 
F i r e s t o n e ' s causes of a c t i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t e under the 
" s a v i n g s 
c l a u s e , " see § 6-2-3, A l a . Code 1975, 
or under the d o c t r i n e of 
e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g . 
"There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between the 
two e q u i t a b l e d o c t r i n e s a f f o r d i n g r e l i e f from u n f a i r 
and 
u n n e c e s s a r i l y 
h a r s h 
r e s u l t s 
[ c a u s e d 
by 
a p p l i c a t i o n of a l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d ] . The 
[ s a v i n g s 
c l a u s e ] 
a v o i d s 
the 
m e c h a n i c a l 
a p p l i c a t i o n 
of 
a 
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s by p o s t p o n i n g the a c c r u a l of 
a cause of 
a c t i o n so 
l o n g 
as 
a p a r t y 
i s unaware 
e i t h e r t h a t he has been i n j u r e d or t h a t the 
i n j u r y 
was 
due 
t o the 
f a u l t or n e g l e c t of an 
i d e n t i f i a b l e 
p e r s o n . E q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g assumes the a c c r u a l of the 
a c t i o n 
but 
i n t e r c e p t s and 
d e l a y s 
the 
bar 
of 
the 
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s because the p l a i n t i f f 
l a c k e d 
v i t a l 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
w h i c h 
was 
w i t h h e l d 
by 
a 
d e f e n d a n t . " 
V i l l a l o b o s v. Fava, 342 N.J. Super. 38, 45-46, 775 A.2d 
700, 
704 
(App. 
D i v . 2001). 
S e c t i o n 
6-2-3, 
A l a . 
Code 
1975, 
Alabama's 
" s a v i n g s 
c l a u s e , " s t a t e s : 
" I n 
a c t i o n s 
s e e k i n g 
r e l i e f 
on 
the 
ground 
of 
f r a u d where the s t a t u t e has c r e a t e d a b a r , the c l a i m 
must not be c o n s i d e r e d 
as h a v i n g 
a c c r u e d u n t i l 
the 
d i s c o v e r y 
by 
the 
a g g r i e v e d 
p a r t y 
of 
the 
f a c t 
c o n s t i t u t i n g the f r a u d , a f t e r which he must have two 
y e a r s w i t h i n w h i c h t o p r o s e c u t e 
h i s a c t i o n . " 
6 
1101403 
In o r d e r t o p r e v e n t a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s from b e i n g used 
as an i n s t r u m e n t of f r a u d , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t § 
6-2-3 
a p p l i e s not o n l y t o the t o r t o f f r a u d , but a l s o t o t o r t s where 
the 
e x i s t e n c e of the cause o f a c t i o n has been f r a u d u l e n t l y 
c o n c e a l e d . 
DGB, 
55 So. 3d a t 224-25. 
S e c t i o n 6-2-3 
does not t o l l the s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n s 
f o r F i r e s t o n e ' s causes of a c t i o n . 
The p l a i n language of § 6¬
2-3 e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t i t i s the d i s c o v e r y of the i n j u r y 
t h a t 
t r i g g e r s the t o l l i n g , not the d i s c o v e r y of the i d e n t i t y o f the 
t o r t f e a s o r . 
S e c t i o n 6-2-3 
a p p l i e s when the p l a i n t i f f ' s 
cause  
of a c t i o n i s unknown; i t does not d e l a y the a c c r u a l of the 
cause of a c t i o n when the p l a i n t i f f knows of the i n j u r y but 
cannot i d e n t i f y the t o r t f e a s o r . Here, F i r e s t o n e knew i n 1995 
t h a t he had been i n j u r e d and t h a t a cause of a c t i o n e x i s t e d . 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , § 6-2-3, w h i c h f o c u s e s on the d i s c o v e r y o f the 
cause of a c t i o n , not the d i s c o v e r y o f the i d e n t i t y of t h e 
t o r t f e a s o r , 
does 
not 
t o l l 
the 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d s 
f o r 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
c l a i m s . 
Next, 
we 
c o n s i d e r 
whether 
e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g 
of 
the 
s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r F i r e s t o n e ' s causes of a c t i o n i s 
a p p r o p r i a t e . 
In Ex p a r t e Ward, 46 So. 3d 888, 
897 ( A l a . 
7 
1101403 
2007), a c a p i t a l case, t h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d 
t h a t 
e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g i s a v a i l a b l e t o suspend t h e r u n n i n g o f a l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d " i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
t h a t a r e beyond [ a 
p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c o n t r o l and t h a t a r e u n a v o i d a b l e even w i t h t h e 
e x e r c i s e o f due d i l i g e n c e . " See a l s o I r w i n v. Department o f  
V e t e r a n s 
A f f a i r s , 498 U.S. 89, 96 
( 1 9 9 0 ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g 
t h a t 
g e n e r a l l y 
a p a r t y 
a r g u i n g 
t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y 
o f 
e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e 
p a r t y has been p u r s u i n g h i s 
o r 
her r i g h t s d i l i g e n t l y and t h a t some e x t r a o r d i n a r y 
c i r c u m s t a n c e 
s t o o d 
i n h i s o r h e r way). 
We 
f u r t h e r n o t e d 
t h a t when 
d e t e r m i n i n g whether e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g was p r o p e r i n 
Ex p a r t e 
Ward, 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
must 
be 
g i v e n 
as 
t o whether t h e 
" ' p r i n c i p l e s o f " e q u i t y would make t h e r i g i d a p p l i c a t i o n o f a 
l i m i t a t i o n 
p e r i o d 
u n f a i r " ' " and whether t h e p l a i n t i f f had 
" ' " e x e r c i s e d 
r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e 
i n 
i n v e s t i g a t i n g and 
b r i n g i n g [the] 
c l a i m s . " ' " 46 So. 3d a t 897 ( q u o t i n g Fahy v. 
Horn, 240 F.3d 239, 245 (3d 
C i r . 2001), q u o t i n g i n t u r n M i l l e r  
v. New 
J e r s e y Dep't o f C o r r . , 145 F.3d 616, 618 (3d 
C i r . 
1 9 9 8 ) ) . 
L a s t l y , we o b s e r v e d t h a t "'the t h r e s h o l d n e c e s s a r y t o 
t r i g g e r e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g i s v e r y h i g h , 
l e s t t h e e x c e p t i o n s 
8 
1101403 
s w a l l o w t h e r u l e . ' 
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M o r c e l l o , 212 F.3d 
1005, 
1010 
(7th C i r . 2000) 
Weaver contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n 
d e n y i n g 
h i s 
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s F i r e s t o n e ' s c o m p l a i n t because, he s a y s , on 
i t s 
f a c e , t h e c o m p l a i n t 
i n d i c a t e s t h a t 
F i r e s t o n e d i d 
n o t 
e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e i n p u r s i n g h i s 
c l a i m s so as 
t o 
make 
t h e 
a p p l i c a t i o n 
o f 
e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g 
p r o p e r . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , he m a i n t a i n s 
t h a t because t h e o n l y 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
F i r e s t o n e 
l a c k e d i n p u r s u i n g h i s causes o f a c t i o n was t h e 
i d e n t i t i e s o f t h e t o r t f e a s o r s , t h e e x e r c i s e o f 
r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e 
r e q u i r e d 
F i r e s t o n e 
t o 
f i l e 
a 
t i m e l y 
c o m p l a i n t 
p u r s u a n t t o Alabama's 
f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y 
p r a c t i c e , see R u l e 
9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t o commence t h e a c t i o n and t o t o l l t h e 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d s . 
Weaver r e a s o n s 
t h a t a t i m e l y 
f i l e d 
f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t 
would have p r e s e r v e d 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
causes o f a c t i o n u n t i l he c o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e t o r t f e a s o r s . 
R u l e 9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s f o r f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y 
p r a c t i c e i n 
Alabama. 
I t s t a t e s : 
" ' F i c t i t i o u s 
P a r t i e s . 
When a p a r t y i s i g n o r a n t o f 
the name o f an o p p o s i n g p a r t y and so a l l e g e s i n t h e 
p a r t y ' s 
p l e a d i n g , 
t h e 
o p p o s i n g 
p a r t y 
may 
be 
d e s i g n a t e d by any name, and when t h a t p a r t y ' s 
t r u e 
name i s d i s c o v e r e d , t h e p r o c e s s and a l l p l e a d i n g s 
9 
1101403 
and 
p r o c e e d i n g s 
i n t h e a c t i o n may be amended by 
s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e t r u e name." 
F i r e s t o n e 
r e c o g n i z e s 
t h a t Alabama 
law p r o v i d e s f o r 
f i c t i t i o u s l y 
named p a r t i e s i n a c o m p l a i n t b u t m a i n t a i n s t h a t 
the 
f i l i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t , a g a i n s t o n l y 
f i c t i t i o u s l y 
named 
d e f e n d a n t s , would n o t commence t h e a c t i o n and s t o p t h e r u n n i n g 
of t h e s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s . 
F i r e s t o n e c i t e s K e n d r i c k v. 
L e w i s , 88 So. 3d 899 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 2012), i n s u p p o r t h i s 
c o n t e n t i o n . 
In K e n d r i c k , 
t h e C o u r t 
o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
c o n c l u d e d t h a t the f i l i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t a bona 
f i d e 
i n t e n t t o s e r v e the d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d 
e x p i r e d d i d 
n o t t o l l the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . 
The C o u r t o f 
C i v i l A p p e a l s 
o p i n e d : 
"Our supreme c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h 
f i l i n g 
a c o m p l a i n t i s s u r e l y a s i g n i f i c a n t 
f a c t o r f o r a 
c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a p a r t y has 
commenced 
an 
a c t i o n 
and whether 
a 
s t a t u t e o f 
l i m i t a t i o n s has thus been t o l l e d , i t i s 
not t h e o n l y 
f a c t o r t h a t a c o u r t may c o n s i d e r . F r e e r v. P o t t e r , 
413 So. 2d 1079, 1081 ( A l a . 
1982) 
. F o r p r a c t i c a l 
r e a s o n s , a p a r t y ' s i n t e n t i s 
a f a c t o r t o c o n s i d e r as 
w e l l . Our supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d : 
"'"We 
h o l d 
t h a t 
i n t h e 
p r e s e n t case t h e a c t i o n was n o t 
'commenced' when 
i t was 
f i l e d 
w i t h t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k because 
i t 
was not f i l e d w i t h t h e bona 
f i d e 
i n t e n t i o n 
o f 
h a v i n g 
i t 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
s e r v e d . 
To 
h o l d 
10 
1101403 
o t h e r w i s e would p e r m i t a p a r t y t o 
e x t e n d u n i l a t e r a l l y t h e p e r i o d o f 
l i m i t a t i o n s by an o r a l 
r e q u e s t 
t h a t a c t u a l s e r v i c e be w i t h h e l d , 
t h e r e b y 
g i v i n g 
t h a t 
p a r t y 
an 
a d d i t i o n a l p e r i o d o f time w i t h i n 
w h i c h 
he 
c o u l d 
conduct 
an 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
t o 
d e t e r m i n e 
whether i n f a c t , he had 
a c l a i m . 
To p e r m i t t h i s would v i o l a t e 
t h e 
fundamental 
concept 
o f 
repose 
found 
w i t h i n 
e v e r y 
s t a t u t e o f 
l i m i t a t i o n s . " 
""[Ward v. Saben A p p l i a n c e Co.,] 391 
So. 
2d 
[1030] a t 1035 [ ( A l a . 
1 9 8 0 ) ] . A 
l a r g e 
number o f cases s u p p o r t t h a t r u l e . J o r d a n  
v. 
Bosworth, 123 Ga. 879, 51 S.E. 755 
( 1 9 0 5 ) ( f i l i n g w i t h note t o " h o l d 
i t " d i d 
not 
c o n s t i t u t e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n 
u n t i l 
such i n s t r u c t i o n s were w i t h d r a w n ) ; 
P e t e r s o n 
P h i l a d e l p h i a 
Suburban 
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Co., 435 Pa. 
232, 
255 
A.2d 
577 
( 1 9 6 9 ) ( " h o l d " 
o r d e r 
g i v e n t o s h e r i f f 
r e l e a s e s p a r t y from s u i t s i n c e t h e r e was 
no 
p r o p e r 
f i l i n g ) ; 
Green v. Ferguson, 184 
S.W.2d 790 (Mo. 
App. 1 9 4 5 ) ( f i l i n g o f s u i t 
w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o c l e r k t o h o l d s e r v i c e 
u n t i l 
f u r t h e r 
n o t i c e 
was 
n o t t h e 
"commencement 
o f 
s u i t " ) ; 
Franz 
v. 
 
Radeackar, 264 S.W. 97 (Mo. 
App. 1924) ( i f 
c l e r k i s 
i n s t r u c t e d upon f i l i n g t o w i t h h o l d 
s e r v i c e u n t i l 
f u r t h e r n o t i c e , a c t i o n 
w i l l 
not be t r e a t e d as b r o u g h t u n t i l t h e c l e r k 
p r o c e e d s w i t h 
s e r v i c e ) ; McMullen O i l and  
R o y a l t y Co. 
v. L y s s y , 353 
S.W.2d 311 (Tex. 
C i v . App. 
1962) ( f i l i n g o f 
p e t i t i o n does 
n o t 
t o l l 
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s i n c e 
t h e r e 
must be a bona 
f i d e 
i n t e n t t o 
i s s u e 
p r o c e s s ) . ' 
" F r e e r , 413 So. 2d a t 1081." 
11 
1101403 
88 So. 3d a t 903-04. 
F i r e s t o n e reasons t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f a f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t t h a t does n o t name a t l e a s t one d e f e n d a n t does n o t 
commence an a c t i o n and s t o p t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d because, he s a y s , t h e p l a i n t i f f does n o t have a bona 
f i d e i n t e n t t o i m m e d i a t e l y s e r v e t h e c o m p l a i n t . 
We d i s a g r e e . 
In K e n d r i c k and t h e cases c i t e d t h e r e i n , t h e p l a i n t i f f and/or 
h i s 
c o u n s e l c l e a r l y e v i d e n c e d an i n t e n t not t o commence t h e 
a c t i o n by e n g a g i n g i n an o v e r t a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t s e r v i c e o f 
the c o m p l a i n t a t t h e time i t 
was f i l e d . 
C l e a r l y , an o v e r t 
a c t i o n by a p l a i n t i f f t o p r e v e n t s e r v i c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t on 
a d e f e n d a n t 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s n o t r e a d y t o 
commence h i s 
o r h e r a c t i o n . 
We cannot c o n c l u d e , as F i r e s t o n e 
u r g e s , 
t h a t a p l a i n t i f f ' s 
f i l i n g o f an a c t i o n naming 
o n l y 
" f i c t i t i o u s p a r t i e s " as d e f e n d a n t s , w i t h o u t more, i n d i c a t e s a 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
i n t e n t i o n n o t t o commence h i s o r h e r a c t i o n . 
A l t h o u g h an o v e r t a c t i o n by a p l a i n t i f f t o h i n d e r s e r v i c e o f 
p r o c e s s 
on an 
i d e n t i f i e d 
d e f e n d a n t 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t t h e 
p l a i n t i f f does n o t have a bona 
f i d e 
i n t e n t t o i m m e d i a t e l y 
s e r v e t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e f i l i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t , naming o n l y 
f i c t i t i o u s p a r t i e s , w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d 
12 
1101403 
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s ready t o pursue h i s o r h e r 
cause o f a c t i o n as soon as t h e t o r t f e a s o r s a r e i d e n t i f i e d . 
Our c o n c l u s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by the exemption o f 
f i c t i t i o u s -
p a r t y p r a c t i c e , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 9 ( h ) , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., from 
the p r o v i s i o n s i n R u l e 4 ( b ) , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., p r o v i d i n g the 
time l i m i t f o r 
the s e r v i c e o f a summons and 
c o m p l a i n t . 
F i r e s t o n e 
d i d n o t 
f i l e 
a 
t i m e l y 
f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t ; 
t h e r e f o r e , he d i d 
n o t e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e 
i n 
p u r s u i n g 
h i s causes o f a c t i o n . 
The 
f a c t s 
b e f o r e 
us 
e s t a b l i s h t h a t F i r e s t o n e knew o f h i s 
causes o f a c t i o n 
b e f o r e 
the 
l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s 
e x p i r e d , b u t he d i d n o t know t h e 
i d e n t i t i e s o f t h e t o r t f e a s o r s . R u l e 9 ( h ) , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., 
i s 
b r o a d enough t o a d d r e s s such a s i t u a t i o n . 
Indeed, n o t h i n g i n 
the language o f R u l e 9(h) p r e c l u d e s t h e f i l i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t o n l y f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s . 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
f a i l u r e 
t o 
f i l e a f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d s f o r 
h i s causes o f a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t he d i d 
not 
e x e r c i s e 
r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e i n p u r s u i n g 
h i s causes o f 
a c t i o n . 
Because 
F i r e s t o n e 
d i d n o t 
s a t i s f y 
t h e 
" r e a s o n a b l e -
d i l i g e n c e " 
s t a n d a r d 
f o r e q u i t a b l e 
t o l l i n g 
and 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
13 
1101403 
causes o f a c t i o n were f i l e d u n d i s p u t e d l y a f t e r t h e 
e x p i r a t i o n s 
of t h e a p p l i c a b l e 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d s , 
F i r e s t o n e ' s 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t Weaver a r e b a r r e d by t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s and 
a r e 
due t o be d i s m i s s e d . 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i s 
r e v e r s e d , 
and 
t h i s 
case i s remanded f o r p r o c e e d i n g s 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
W o o d a l l , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Shaw, and Main, J J . , concur. 
Malone, C.J., 
and Murdock and Wise, J J . , 
d i s s e n t 
( w r i t i n g 
from Murdock, J . , 
t o f o l l o w ) . 
14