# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 30 63

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Je nn ife r Ray H eg lu nd ; J am ie Lee Heg lu nd

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts
,

v.

Ait ki n C ou nt y ; Ci ty of Ait ki n; Cit y of B ab bi tt ; Ci ty of Bi wab ik ; Ci ty of Bre it un g; Ci ty of Ch is ho lm ; Ci ty of Cl oq ue t; Co ok Co un ty; Cit y of C oo k; Cro w W in g Co un ty; Cit y

of De er Ri ve r; Do ug la s C ou nt y ; Ci ty of Dul ut h; Cit y of El y ; Ci ty of
Em il y ; Ci ty of Eve le th ; Ci ty of Fl oo dwo od ; Ci ty of Fo res t Lak e; Cit y of Gi lb ert
,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s,

Ci ty of Gran d R ap id s,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee ,

Hen ne pi n C ou nt y ; Ci ty of Herm an to wn; Cit y of Hi bb in g; Cit y

of Hi ll Cit y ; Ci ty of Hoyt Lake s; Cit y

of I nt ern at io na l Fa ll s; Ita sc a Co un ty; Cit y of Ke ewat in ; Lak e Co un ty; Cit y

of Lee ch Lake ; Ci ty of Map le Grov e; Cit y of M in ne ap ol is ; Ci ty of
Nas hwa uk ; No rm an Co un ty; Cit y of Oro no ; Pi ne Co un ty; Ram se y Co un ty; Cit y

of
Ro se au ; Ci ty of Sart el l; Sco tt Co un ty; She rb ur ne Co un ty; Cit y of S t. J am es ; St

. Lou is Co un ty; Cit y

of S t. Pa ul ; Ci ty of Two Harb or s; Cit y of Vi rg in ia ; W as hi ng to n C ou nt y ; Win on a Co un ty; Mi ch ael Cam pi on , in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty

as th e Co m

m is si on er o f th e Dep art m en t o f Pu bl ic Safe ty; Ram on a Doh m an , in he r in di vi du al cap aci ty as th e Co m m is si on er o f th e Dep art m en t o f Pu bl ic Safe ty; Jo hn

an d J an e Doe s (1 -6 00 ), act in g i n t he ir i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty as su pe rv is or s, o ffi cers , de pu ti es , st aff, i nv es ti ga to rs , em pl oyees o r ag en ts of t he ot he r go ve rn m en ta l

ag en ci es ; Dep art m en t o f Pu bl ic Safe ty D oe s (1 -3 0) , act in g i n t he ir i nd iv id ua l

cap aci ty as of

fic ers , su pe rv is or s, s ta ff, em pl oyees, i nd ep en de nt co nt ract or s o r
ag en ts of t he Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t o f Pu bl ic Safe ty; Ent it y Does (1- 10 0)

,in cl ud in g c it ie s, co un ti es , m un ic ip al it ie s an d o th er en ti ti es si te d i n M in ne so ta
,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts
,

Fran k S ch erf, ac ti ng in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty as th e Ass is ta nt Ch ie f of th e Gran d Rap id s Po li ce Dep art m en t,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee ,

Kev in Fri eb e, act in g i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty as a Ser ge an t o f th e St . Lou is
Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce; Eric Han eg m on , act in g i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty as a Dep ut y of t he St. Lo ui s C ou nt y

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce; Davi d Lo va as , act in g i n h is
in di vi du al cap aci ty as a Dep ut y of t he St. Lo ui s C ou nt y

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce; Dian e McC om es ky, acti ng in he r in di vi du al cap aci ty as an em pl oyee of St. Lo ui s Co un ty; Lin da Sm it h, ac ti ng in he r in di vi du al cap aci ty as an em pl oyee of th e St

. Lou is Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce; W ay ne Toewe , act in g i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty as a Dep ut y of t he St. Lo ui s C ou nt y

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce; Kenn et h Weis , act in g i n h is
in di vi du al cap aci ty as a Dep ut y of t he St. Lo ui s C ou nt y

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce; Ro be rta Ny la nd ; Will ia m

Evan s, ac ti ng in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty as a Dep ut y of t he St.
Lou is Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 11, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Je nn ife r Heg lu nd an d her hu sb an d Ja m ie Heg lu nd su ed nu m ero us Mi nn es ot a
ci ti es an d co un ti es , st at e of fic ia ls

, an d hu nd red s of Jo hn an d Ja ne Doe s, al le gi ng th at

po li ce of fic ers ha d im

pr op erl y acce ss ed th ei r pr iv at e in fo rm at io n in th e S ta te ’s

dr iv er’s li cen se da ta ba se

. The Heg lu nd s la te r am en de d th ei r co m pl ai nt to rep la ce on e
of th e Jo hn Doe s wit h Fran k Sch erf, th e fo rm er Gran d Rap id s as si st an t ch ie f of

po li ce. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Sch erf an d Gran d Rap id s

on th e g r ou nd th at th e cl ai m was ba rred by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. The co ur t

co nc lu de d th at th e Heg lu nd s’ am en de d co m pl ai nt na m in g Sch erf di d no t rel at e ba ck

to th e ti m el y or ig i n a l c om pl ai nt
, be cau se th e Heg lu nd s di d no t m ak e a “ m is ta ke ”

wit hi n th e m ean in g of Fed eral R ul e of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 15 (c) by su in g “ Jo hn Doe ”

ra t h e r th an Sch erf in th ei r or ig in al co m pl ai nt

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1

co nc lu si on th at th e Heg lu nd s’ us e of th e Jo hn Doe pl ead in g de vi ce was no t a

“ m is ta ke ” u nd er Ru le 15 (c), an d t he refo re af fir m

.

I.

Je nn ife r H e g l u n d i s a fo rm er la w en fo rcem en t of fic er who wor ke d fo r a few

d i f f e r en t ci ti es an d on e co un ty in Mi nn es ot a. In 20 13

, Je nn ife r an d he r hu sb an d

Ja m ie req ue st ed an au di t fro m th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t of Pu bl ic Saf e t y t o
de te rm in e whe th er th ei r pr iv at e in fo rm at i o n ha d be en acce ss ed th ro ug h th e St at e’s

dr iv er’s li cen se da ta ba se

. Acco r d i n g to th e co m pl ai nt
, th ey req ue st ed th e au di t

be cau se Je nn ife r’s ex -h us ba nd

, a M i nn es ot a St at e Troo pe r, ha d ha ras se d Ja m ie on

se ve ral oc cas io ns , an d Je nn ife r was co nc ern ed th at he r ex -h us ba nd ha d ob ta in ed th e

co up le ’s pri va te in fo rm at io n.

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-3

-The au di t sh ow e d t h at Je nn ife r’s in fo rm at io n ha d be en acce ss ed 44 6 ti m es

be twee n 2 00 3 a nd 20 13 , and th at Jamie’s ha d b een acce ss ed 34 ti m es fro m 20 06 to

20 13

. On Sep te m

be r 9, 20 13

, th e Heg lu nd s se nt no ti ce-o f-cl ai m le tt ers to th e en ti ti es
id en ti fie d i n t he off

ic ia l au di ts ; o ne was t he Ci ty of Gran d R ap id s. Th e le tt er l is te d

th e da te s an d ti m es of th e acce ss es th at th e Heg lu nd s cl ai m ed were in vi ol at io n of th e
fed eral Driv er’s Pri va cy

Pro te ct io n Act (DPPA), 1 8 U.S.C. § 27 21

.

The DPPA fo rb id s st at e m o t o r ve hi cl e de pa rtments fro m di sc lo si ng pe rs on al

in fo rm at io n co nt ai n e d in m ot or ve hi cl e reco rd s— su ch as an in di vi du al ’s na m e,
ad dr es s, or ph ot og rap h— ex cep t fo r us es ex pl ic it ly en um erat ed in th e st at ut e. Se e 18

U.S.C. §§ 27 21 (a)- ( b )

, 27 25 (3 ). One su ch pe rm is si bl e us e is by “ an y go ve rn m en t

ag en cy , in cl ud in g an y co ur t or la w en fo rcem en t ag en cy , in carr y in g ou t it s fu nc ti on s.”

Id

. § 27 21 (b )(1 ). A pe rs on who kn owi ng ly ob ta in s, di sc lo se s, or us es an in di vi du al ’s

pe rs on al in fo rm at io n fro m a m ot or ve hi cl e reco rd “fo r a p u r p os e no t pe rm it te d” is

li ab le to th e in di vi du al

. Id

. § 27 24 (a). The Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t of Pu bl ic Safe ty

co ll ect s pe rs on al in fo rm at io n in th e pr oc es s of reg is te rin g an d li cen si ng dr iv ers of

m ot or ve hi cl es

. St at e an d lo cal la w en fo rcem en t, in cl ud in g th e Gran d Rap id s po li ce
de pa rtment, h av e acc es s t o t hi s i nf or m at io n t hr ou gh an Int ern et po rta l.

On Jan ua ry 31

, 20 14

, th e Heg lu nd s s ue d n earl y th ree d oz en cit ie s, m or e th an

a do zen co un ti es , th e cu rren t an d fo rm er co m m is si on ers of th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t

of Pu bl ic Safe ty, an d hu nd red s of Jo hn an d Ja ne Doe s. The Heg lu nd s br ou gh t cl ai m s
fo r vi ol at io ns of th e DPPA un de r th e Act it se lf and un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, as well

as st at e-l aw cl ai m s fo r co m m on -la w in va si on o f p riv acy. Man y of th e de fen da nt s,
in cl ud in g Gran d Rap id s, pr om pt ly m ov ed to di sm is s th e cl ai m s as in su ffi ci en tl y pl ead ed an d ba rred by th e ap pl ic ab le fo ur -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Se e 28 U.S.C.
§ 16 58 (a); McDo no ug h v. Ano ka Co un ty
, 79 9 F.3 d 93 1, 93 9, 9 4 3 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 15 ).

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d m os t of th e DPPA cl ai m s as un ti m el y an d di sm is se d th e § 1 98 3 a nd in va si on -o f-p riv acy clai m s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

.

-4

-Afte r a se rie s of se tt le m en ts
, th e on ly rem ai ni ng cl ai m was ba se d on th e acce ss

of Je nn ife r’s in fo rm at io n on Mar ch 25

, 20 10 by so m eo ne at th e Gran d Rap id s Po li ce Dep art m en t. The Heg lu nd s se rv ed G ra nd Ra pid s wit h di sc ov ery req ue st s on Octo be r 2

14

, 20 14

. On Decem

be r 1, th e ci ty rep li ed

, in fo rm in g th e Heg lu nd s th at Fran k Sch erf

was th e of

fic er who ha d acce ss ed Je nn ife r’s in fo rm at io n. In Feb ru ary 20 15 , Gran d
Rap id s m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n so th at

th e Heg lu nd s co ul d co nd uc t di sc ov ery. The Heg lu nd s th en de po se d Sch erf. In

Mar ch 20 15

, th e Heg lu nd s m ov ed to am en d th e co m pl ai nt to su bs ti tu te Sch erf fo r a
Jo hn Doe d efen da nt . The d is tri ct co ur t g ran te d t he m ot io n t o a m en d.

Gran d Rap id s an d Sch erf th en mov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on th e

st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. The di st ric t c ou rt gr an te d th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at th e
He g l un ds ’ am en de d co m pl ai nt di d no t rel at e ba ck to th e ti m el y or ig in al co m pl ai nt

be cau se th e Heg lu nd s’ us e of “ Jo hn Do e ” r a t h er th an “ Sch erf” in th e or ig in al

co m pl ai nt was no t a “ m is ta ke ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of Ru le 15 (c). Tha t ru le pr ov id es
th at an am en de d co m

pl a i n t “ rel at es ba ck ” to th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt fo r pu rp os es of

ti m in g if th e pa rty ad de d in th e am en dm en t “ kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn ow n t h a t th e

act io n wou ld ha ve be en br ou gh t ag ai n s t i t
, b ut fo r a m is ta ke co nc ern in g th e pr op er

pa rty’ s id en ti ty.” The di st ric t co ur t r u l e d a lt ern at iv el y th at ev en if th e act io n were
ti m el y , Sch erf wou ld be en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t beca us e th e Heg lu nd s fail ed

to de m on st rat e a ge nu in e is su e o f mat e r i a l fact as to whe th er Sch erf vi ol at ed th e
DPPA. The Heg lu nd s ap pe al

.

3

The Hegl un ds cla im

th at Sch erf’s acces s of Jen ni fer’s inf or m at io n c ou nt s as 2
fiv e se pa rat e acce ss es un de r th e DPPA. W he th er Sch erf’s al le ge d act io ns co ns ti tu te d

on e acce ss or fiv e is no t ne ces sa ry to ou r de ci si on , so we do no t res ol ve th e qu es ti on

.

The Heg lu nd s cl ai m th at be cau se Gran d Rap id s kn owi ng ly au th or iz ed Sch erf 3

to ob ta in Je nn ife r’s pe rs on al in fo rm at io n, t h e c it y is vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r Sch erf’s

act s. The y do no t arg ue on ap pe al th at th ere is a n y s e p a r a t e ba si s fo r pr oc eed in g
ag ai ns t Gran d Rap id s if th e cl ai m ag ai ns t Sch erf is ba rred by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

.

-5

-II.

As a pr el im in ary m at te r, Sch erf an d Gran d Rap id s arg ue th at th e Heg lu nd s la ck

Arti cl e III sta nd in g to br in g th ei r DPPA cl ai m , be cau se th ey ha ve no t dem on st rat ed

an in jury in fact

. Sch erf an d th e ci ty co nt en d th at a st at ut or y vi ol at io n al on e is no t an
in jury in fact

, an d th at Je nn ife r’s pr of es se d an xi et y fro m k n owi ng th at Sch erf

im pr operly acce ss ed he r pe rs on al in fo rm at io n is no t su ffi ci en tl y co nc ret e to co nst itu te

an in jury in fact un de r Arti cl e III. W e rev ie w st an di ng de no vo

. Bra it be rg v. Ch ar te r
Co mmc’n s, In c. , 83 6 F .3d 92 5, 9 29 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

To de m on st rat e Arti c l e I I I s t an di ng , a pl ai nt iff “ m us t ha ve (1 ) su ffer ed an
in jury in fact

, (2 ) th at is fai rly trace ab le to th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t o f th e de fen da nt
,

an d (3 ) th at is li ke ly to b e red res se d b y a fav or ab le jud ic ia l d eci si on .” Sp ok eo , Inc

.

v. Rob in s , 13 6 S. Ct

. 15 40

, 15 47 (2 01 6)

. An in jury in fact m

us t be bo th pa rti cu la riz ed

to th e pl ai nt iff an d al so co nc ret e—r eal , n ot ab st r a c t

. I d. at 15 48

. Co ng res s can no t

su pp la nt Arti cl e III’s st an di ng req ui rem en ts by co nf erri ng a st at ut or y rig ht to su e on

a p l a in ti ff who wou ld no t ot he rwis e ha ve st an di ng

. Id

. at 15 47 -4 8. Bu t Co ng r e s s

m ay el ev at e de fa c t o c o n cret e in juri es , whe th er ta ng ib le or in ta ng ib le

, in to le ga ll y

co gn iz ab le in

juri es

. Lu

ja n v. Defs

. of W

il d l if e , 50 4 U.S. 55 5, 57 8 (1 99 2)

. To

de te rm in e whe th er an in ta ng ib le ha rm co un ts as a n i nju ry

in fact , we m

us t co ns id er
Co ng res s’ jud gm en t an d whe th er th e al le ge d in ta ng ib le ha rm ha s a cl os e rel at io ns hi p

to a ha rm th at tra di ti on al ly pr ov id ed a ba si s fo r su it in th e A n g l o

- A mer i can le ga l

syste m

. Sp ok

eo , 13 6 S . Ct. at 15 49

.

In li gh t of th os e co ns id erat io ns , we co nc lu de th at th e Heg lu nd s ha ve st an di ng

t o b rin g th ei r DPPA cl ai m

. An in di vi du al ’s co nt ro l of in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g h e r

pe rs on —t he pr iv acy in te res t th e Heg lu nd s clai m he re— was a co gn iz ab le in te res t at

co m m on law. U.S. Dep ’t of Ju st ic e v. Rep or te rs Co mm. fo r Fr eed om o f Pr es s , 48 9

U.S. 74 9, 76 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; Pi ch le r v. UNITE

, 54 2 F.3 d 38 0, 38 8 (3 d Ci r. 20 08 ); cf

. Bra it be rg , 83 6 F.3 d at 93 0. In en act in g th e DPPA, Co ng res s reco gn iz ed th e po te nt ia l

-6

-ha rm to pr iv acy fro m st at e of f i c i al s acce ss in g dr iv ers ’ pe rs on al in fo rm at io n fo r
im pr op er re as on s. Se e Ma ra ci ch v. Sp ea rs , 13 3 S . Ct. 2 19 1, 2 19 5 (2 01 3)

.

The Heg lu nd s do no t al le ge a ba re pr oc ed ur al vi ol at io n; th ey cl ai m th at Sch erf

vi ol at ed th e DPPA’s su bs ta nt iv e pr ot ect io ns by in v a d i n g J en ni fer’s pr iv acy. Thi s
al le ga ti on di st in gu is he s th e Heg l un ds ’ cl ai m fro m th e on e ad va nc ed in Bra it be rg
ba se d on a cab le c o mp a n y’s pr oc ed ur al vi ol at io n of it s st at ut or y du ty to de st ro y

p e rs on al ly id en ti fia bl e in fo rm at io n th e cab le co m pa ny la wfu ll y ob ta in ed

. Se e 8 3 6

F.3 d at 93 0. I n c o n c l u d in g th at th e Bra it be rg pl ai nt iff fai le d to al le ge an in jury in

fa c t
, we co nt ras te d th e “ co m m on la w tra di ti on of la wsu it s fo r in va si on of

pr iv acy”—th e tra di ti on th at th e Heg lu nd s in vo ke he re— wit h th e la ck of co m pa rab le

tra di ti on of su it s fo r ret ai ni ng in fo rm at io n la wfu ll y ob ta in ed

. Id

. The in ta ng ib le ha rm

as so ci at ed wit h an al le ge d vi ol at io n of th e DPPA’s s u b s t a n ti ve pr ot ect io ns is

su ffi ci en t fo r th e Heg lu nd s to es ta bl is h an in jury i n f a ct

. Acco rd Gra cz

yk v. W

. Pub l’g Co

. , 66 0 F.3 d 27 5, 27 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Ta yl or v. Acxi om Co rp

. , 61 2 F.3 d 32 5,

34 0 n .15 (5t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

III.

The Heg lu nd s arg ue th at th ei r cl ai m is ti m el y ba se d on two al te rn at iv e gr ou nd s.
Fi rs t, th ey sa y th at th e co ur t sh ou ld ap pl y eq ui ta bl e es to pp el to pr ecl ud e Sch erf fro m
rel yi n g on th e li m it at io ns pe rio d as a de fen se

. The do ct rin e of eq ui ta bl e es to pp el

pr ev en ts a de fen da nt fro m rel y in g on th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns if th e de fen da nt

kn owi ng ly al lo w ed th e pl ai nt iff to th in k th at sh e su ed th e pr op er pa rty or act ua ll y

m is le d th e pl ai nt iff as to th e pr op er p a r ty’ s id en ti ty. Sc hr ad er v. Roy al Ca ri bb ea n
Cr ui se Li ne , In c. , 95 2 F.2 d 10 08

, 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). The Heg l u n d s cl ai m th at

eq ui ta bl e es to ppel ap pli es he re , be cau se Gran d Rap id s an d th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t

of Pu bl ic Safe t y p r ev en te d th em fro m id en ti fy in g Sch erf at an earl ie r ti m e. The y

co m pl ai n th at Gran d Rap id s de la y ed di sc ov ery by fil in g an earl y m ot io n to di sm is s,

an d th at th e di sc ov ery of Sch erf’s id en ti ty was hi nd ered by th e Dep art m en t of Pu bl ic

-7

-Safe ty’ s in it ia l refu sa l to di sc lo se whi ch of fic ers acce ss ed th e H e g l un ds ’ dr iv er’s

li cen se reco rd s.

W e co nc lu de th at eq ui ta bl e es to pp el do es no t ap pl y . Fil in g a pr om pt m ot io n

to d i s mi s s i s no t th e so rt of in eq ui ta bl e co nd uc t th at cal ls fo r ap pl ic at io n of th e
do ct rin e. The Heg lu nd s po in t to la ng ua ge in Sc hr ad er th at “ [a] de fen da nt ’s act io ns

m ak in g it di ffi cu lt fo r th e pl ai nt iff to le arn th e in te nd ed de fen da nt ’s pr op er na m e un ti l

aft er th e li m it at io ns pe rio d ex pi re[s ]” m ay fo rm th e ba si s fo r eq ui ta bl e es to pp el

. 95 2

F.2 d a t 1 01 3. Bu t read in co nt ex t, th at la ng ua ge refe rs to a de fen da nt ’s a ffi rm at iv e

co nd uc t th at was de si gn ed t o , or was un m is ta ka bl y li ke ly to
, m is le ad th e pl ai nt iff

. Id

. ; se e al so Bell v. Fow le r , 99 F.3 d 26 2, 26 8- 69 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Gran d Rap id s di d

n o t en ga ge in m is le ad in g co nd uc t he re. The Heg lu nd s su bm it te d th e di sc ov er y

req ue st to Gran d Rap id s on Octo be r 14

, 20 14

, m or e th an si x m on th s aft er th e st at ut e
of li m it at io ns ex pi red

. And an y de la y by th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t of Pu bl ic Safe ty

is no t at tri bu ta bl e to Gran d R ap id s o r Sch erf.

Seco nd

, th e Heg lu nd s con te nd th at un de r Ru le 15 (c), the am en de d com pl ai nt

na m in g Sch erf rel at es ba ck to th e da te of th e ti m el y or ig in al co m pl ai nt

. As ap pl ic ab le

he re, Ru le 15 (c) p ro vi de s t ha t an am en de d co m pl ai nt rel at es ba ck to th e d at e o f th e

or ig in al co m

pl ai nt whe n: (1 ) th e cl ai m or de fen se as se rte d in th e am en de d co m pl ai nt

ari se s ou t of th e sa m e co nd uc t, t r a n s a c ti on , or oc cu rren ce se t ou t in th e in it ia l

co m pl ai nt , ( 2) wit hi n 90 da y s aft er th e or ig in al co m pl ai n t was fil ed , t he pa rty t o be

ad de d “ rece iv ed su ch no ti ce of th e act io n th at it wil l no t be preju di ced in de fen di ng

on th e m eri ts ,” an d (3 ) up on rece iv in g no ti ce, th e pa rty to be ad de d “ kn ew or sh ou ld

ha ve kn own th at th e act io n wou ld ha ve be en br ou gh t ag a i n s t i t, bu t fo r a m is ta ke

co nc ern in g t h e pr op er pa rty’ s id en ti ty.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 15 (c)( 1) (C); 4( m ). W he n
th os e co nd it io ns are sa ti sf ie d, th e am en de d co m

pl ai nt is tre at ed as if it were fil ed on
th e da te of th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt

. Se e Hay es v. Fau lk ne r Co un ty
, 38 8 F.3 d 66 9, 67 5-

76 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

-8

-The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at t h e Heg lu nd s’ a m en de d co m pl ai nt fai le d to

sa ti sf y th e th ird req ui rem en t be cau se th e Heg lu nd s’ us e of th e Jo hn Doe pl ead in g
de vi ce di d no t qu al ify as a “ m is ta ke .” The pa rti es ag ree th at th e Heg lu nd s su ed “ Jo hn

Doe ” in th ei r or ig in al co m pl ai nt be cau se th ey di d no t th en kn ow th e na m e of th e
of fic er who acce ss ed Je nn ife r’s in fo rm at io n on Mar ch 25

, 20 10

. W e rev ie w de no vo
th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t and it s in te rp ret at io n of Rul e 15 (c). 4

The Heg lu nd s arg ue th at la ck of kn owl ed ge of th e pr op er pa r t y’ s id en ti ty

qu al ifi es as a m is ta ke un de r Ru le 15 (c). Sch erf an d G r a nd Rap id s co nt en d th at th e Heg lu nd s’ de ci si on to na m e a Jo hn Doe d e f e n d a n t can no t be ch arac te riz ed as a

m is ta ke be cau se th e Heg lu nd s k ne w th at th ey la ck ed kn owl ed ge of th e d efen da nt ’s

tru e id en ti ty—th ere was no m is un de rs ta nd in g or m is co nc ep ti on

. The y arg ue th at th e Heg lu nd s in te nt io na ll y rep res en te d th ei r la ck of kn owl ed ge ab ou t th e id en ti ty of th e
de fen da nt
, so th ere was no m is ta ke

, an d th e Heg lu nd s’ am en de d co m pl ai nt do es no t

rel at e b ack un de r Ru le 15 (c).

In Kr up sk i v. Co st a Cr oc ie re S. p. A.

, 56 0 U.S. 53 8 (2 01 0)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

reas on ed th at rel at io n ba ck un de r Ru le 15 (c) de pe nd s on “ wh a t t h e p r os pe ct iv e
d e f e nd an t kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own du rin g th e Ru le 4( m ) pe rio d, no t wha t th e pl ai nt if f kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own at th e ti m e of fil in g he r or ig in al co m pl ai nt .” Id

. at 54 8. The Co ur t s ta te d t ha t a p la in ti ff’s k no wled ge is “ rel ev an t on ly if it be ars on
th e de fen da nt ’s un de rs ta nd in g of wh et he r th e p la in ti ff m ad e a m is ta ke .” Id

. At th e

sa m e ti m e, ho wev er, th e Co ur t affi rm ed th at a pl ai nt iff ’s de li be rat e ch oi ce, m ad e wit h

a fu ll un de rs ta nd in g o f th e le ga l an d fact ua l sit ua ti on , is “ th e an ti th es is of m ak in g a
mist ak e.” Id

. at 54 9. By co nt ras t, a m is ta ke oc cu rs if a pl ai nt iff kn ows th at tw o o r

Thi s co ur t br ie fly di sc us se d in Fou lk v. Ch ar ri er , 26 2 F.3 d 68 7, 69 6 (8 th Ci r. 4
20 01 ), whe th er an am en dm en t to rep la c e a “J o h n Doe ” de fen da nt wil l rel at e ba ck

un de r Ru le 15 (c), b ut th e co ur t re so lv ed th at cas e o n o th er g ro un ds

.

-9

-m or e pa rti es ex is t bu t ch oo se s to su e th e wro n g o n e b as ed on a m is un de rs ta nd in g

ab ou t t ha t p art y ’s st at us or r ol e. Id

.

The Co ur t de fin ed m is ta ke as “ [a]n erro r, m is co nc ep ti on , or m is un de rs ta nd in g;

an erro ne ou s be li ef

. ” I d

. a t 54 8 (q uo ti ng Bla ck’s La w Dict io na ry 10 92 (9 th ed

. 20 09 )). I t a l s o d e s cri be d a m is ta ke as “ a m is un de rs ta nd in g of th e m ean in g or
im pl ic at io n of so m et hi ng ”; “ a wro ng act io n or st at em en t pr oc eed in g fro m fa u l t y jud gm en t, i na de qu at e k no wled ge , or i na tt en ti on ”; “ an erro ne ou s be li ef”; or “ a st at e
of m in d no t in acco rd an ce wit h th e fact s.” Id

. at 54 8

- 4 9 ( q u o t in g W eb st er ’s Th ir d

New Int er na ti on al

Dict io na ry 14 46 (20 02 )).

W e co nc lu de th at na m in g a Jo hn Doe de fen da nt is no t a “m i st ak e.” Mi st ak e
im pl ie s in ad ve rte nc e or a si nc ere bu t wro ng be li ef. “ Erro r,” w h ic h Kr up sk i

reco gn iz ed as syno nym ou s wit h mi s t a k e , is de fin ed as “ an act in vo lv in g an

un in te nt io na l de vi at io n fro m tru th or accu racy.” W eb st er ’s Th ir d New In te rn at io na l

Dict io na ry 77 2 (2 00 2) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Tha t sa m e di ct io na ry en try no te s th at whi le

erro r an d m is ta ke are syno nym s, erro r im pl ie s “ a de vi at io n fro m co rrec t

. . . co ur se ,”

an d m is ta ke “ su gg es ts a mis un de rs ta nd in g , wro ng de ci si on , or in ad ver te nt wro ng

act io n.” Id

. (em

ph as es ad de d)

. The ve ry de fin it io n of “ m is ta ke ” ci te d in Kr up sk i

refl ect s th is m ean in g whe n th e co or di na te su bs en se of th e wor d is rep ro du ced in fu ll :

“ a wro ng act io n or st at em en t pr oc eed in g fro m fau lt y jud gm en t, in ad eq ua te

kn owl ed ge , or in at te nt io n : an un in te nt io na l er ro r .” Id

. at 14 46 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Oth er la y di ct io na rie s co nf irm th at “ m is ta ke ” im

pl ie s an un in te nt io na l erro r th ro ug h

la ck of un de rs ta nd in g. Se e Ameri ca n Her it ag e Dict io na ry 11 28 (5 th ed

. 20 11 ) (“ An

erro r or fau lt r e s u l t in g fro m de fect iv e jud gm en t, de fic ie nt kn owl ed ge , or

care le ss ne ss ” or “ [a] m is co nc ep ti on or mi s u n de rs ta nd in g.” ); Oxfo rd Eng li sh

Dict io na ry (2 d e d. 1 98 9) (“ A m is co nc ep ti on or m is ap pr eh en si on of th e m ean in g o f

so m et hi ng ; h e n ce , an erro r or fau lt in th ou gh t or act io n.” ); W eb st er ’s New W

or ld

Dict io na ry of

th e Ameri ca n L an gu ag e: Col le ge Edi ti on 94 2- 43 (19 68 ) (“ A fau lt in

un de rs ta nd in g, p erce pt io n, i nt erp ret at io n, et c.”).

-1 0-The sa m e is tr u e i n l eg al di ct io na rie s. The de fin it io n fro m Bla ck’s La w

Dict io na ry ci te d in Kr up sk i —“ [a]n erro r, m is co nc ep ti on , or mi s un de rs ta nd in g; an

erro ne ou s be li ef”— im

pl ie s a la ck of in te nt io na li ty. Ea r l i e r ed it io ns of Bla ck’s

ex pr es sl y in cl ud e th e m od ifi er “ un in te nt i o n a l ” i n th e de fin it io n of m is ta ke

. The

fo ur th ed it io n, whi ch pr ev ai le d in 19 66 whe n Ru le 15 was am en de d to ad d th e

“ m is ta ke ” la ng ua ge , de fin ed th e te rm as “ [s ]om e un in te nt io na l act
, om is si on , or erro r
ari si ng fro m ig no ran ce, su rp ris e, im po si ti on , or m is pl aced co nf id en ce.” Bla ck’s La w
Dict io na ry 11 52 -5 3 (4 th ed

. 19 51 ) (em ph as is ad de d) ; se e al

s o Bla ck’s La w
Dict io na ry 11 52 -5 3 (4 th rev . ed. 1 96 8) (sa m e).

Th e Heg lu nd s arg ue th at th ei r Jo hn Doe pl ead in g qu al ifi es as a “ m is t a k e ”

be cau se it is “ a wro ng

. . . st at em en t pr oc eed in g fro m

. . . in ad eq ua te kn owl ed ge ,” on e
of th e de fin it io ns fro m W

eb st er ’s th at was ci te d in Kr up sk i

. To be su re, th e Heg lu nd s

us ed th e Jo hn Doe de vi ce be cau se th ey ha d in ad eq ua te kn o w l e d g e of Sch erf’s

id en ti ty, bu t th e in cl us io n of “ Jo hn Doe ” was no t a “ wro ng st at em en t” in th e se ns e of

th e de fin it io n. The de vi ce accu rat el y co nv ey ed th at t h e H e g l u nd s di d no t kn ow
Sch erf’s id en ti ty. The st at em en t was no t t h e r e s ul t of a m is un de rs ta nd in g or

m is co nc ep ti on ; it was an in te nt io na l m is id en ti fic at io n, no t an un in t e n t i o n al erro r,
in ad ve rte nt wron g a ct io n, o r “ m is ta ke .”

Oth er ci rcu it s li ke wis e ha ve co nc lu de d th at a pl ai nt iff ’s la ck of kn owl ed ge of

a de fen da nt ’s id en ti ty is no t a “ m is ta ke ” u n d e r R u l e 15 (c). Se e Smi th v. Ci ty of

Akro n , 47 6 F. App ’x 6 7, 69 (6 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Gar re tt v. Flemi ng , 3 62 F.3d 69 2, 6 96 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; W

ay ne v. Ja rv is

, 19 7 F.3d 10 98

, 11 03 (1 1t h Cir. 19 99 ), ov er ru le d

in pa rt on ot he r gr ou nd

s by Man d er

s v. Lee

, 33 8 F.3 d 13 04 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (en

ba nc ); Ja co bs en v. Osb or ne , 13 3 F.3 d 3 1 5

, 32 0- 21 (5 th Ci r. 19 98 ); Bar ro w v.
W et he rs fi el d Pol ic e Dep ’t

, 66 F.3 d 46 6, 46 9- 70 (2 d Ci r. 19 9 5 ); W or th in gt on v.
W il so n , 8 F.3 d 1 25 3, 1 25 6- 57 (7 th Ci r. 19 93 ). But see Var la ck v. S W

C Ca ri bb ea n , In c., 55 0 F.2 d 1 7 1

, 1 7 5 ( 3 d Ci r. 19 77 ). Alt ho ug h m os t of th es e cas es pr ed at ed

Kr up sk i

, we are no t co nv in ce d th at th e Co ur t’s an al y si s di ct at es th at “ m is ta ke ”

-1 1-in cl ud es wro ng act s or st at em en ts m ad e wit h fu ll kn owl ed ge th at th e na m ed pa rty is

no t th e pr op er defe nd an t. W hi le Kr up sk i co nc lu de d th at Ru le 15 (c) focu se s larg el y

on wha t a pr os pe ct iv e de fen da nt kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn ow n , t he Co ur t was no t

co nf ro nt ed wit h an in te nt io na l erro r by a pl ai nt iff th at is in co m pa ti bl e wit h th e ve ry
de fin it io ns of “ m is ta ke ” th at go ve rn ed th e Co ur t’s d eci si on . 56 0 U.S. at 54 8- 49

.

The Heg lu nd s u rg e u s t o re co gn iz e Jo hn Doe pl ead in gs as “ m is ta ke s” so th at

p l ai nt iff s wit h in ad eq ua te kn owl ed ge wil l no t be su bjec te d to sh or te r st at ut e s o f

li m it a t i o n th an pl ai nt iff

s who li st th e wro ng de fen da nt in an or ig in al co m pl ai nt

. The re m ay well be so un d po li cy arg um e n t s f o r p e rm it ti ng rel at io n ba ck whe n a pl ai nt iff am en ds a Jo hn Doe pl ead in g to su bs ti tu te a real pe rs on an d can sa ti sf y th e

ot he r req ui rem en ts un de r Ru le 15 (c). Se e Si ng le ta ry v. Pa. Dep ’t of Co rr

. , 26 6 F.3 d

1 8 6

, 2 0 1 n

. 5 (3 d Ci r. 20 01 ). Bu t we th in k th es e co nc ern s are be st di rect ed to th e

ru le m ak ers , be cau se it wou ld un du ly stra in th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e pr es en t rul e to

sa y th at Ru le 15 (c) en co m pa ss e s th e Heg lu nd s’ am en dm en t. Und er Ru le 15 (c),

rel at io n ba ck is pe rm it te d on ly whe n th e act io n or ig in al ly is br ou gh t a g a i n s t th e

wro ng pe rs on be cau se of a “ m is ta ke .” Reg ard le ss of whe n Sch erf le arn ed of th e

act io n or wha t he kn ew ab ou t whe th er th e pl ai nt iff s wou ld li ke to ha ve su ed hi m , th e

H e g l un ds di d no t m ak e a “ m is ta ke ” in th e or di na ry se ns e of th e wor d whe n th e y
in te nt io na ll y su ed “ Jo hn Doe ” whi le kn owi ng th at he was no t th e pr op er de fen da nt

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-