I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 1 5 7 2 - S CT GARLOCK S

EAL I NG TECHNO LOGI

ES , LL C, S U C C ES S O R B Y M ER G ER TO G

A R L O C K , I N C ., TRA NE US I

NC. , FORM

ERL Y KNOW

N AS AMER ICA N S T

AN DA RD , I NC . , RA P IDAMER ICA N C OR P ORAT ION
v. M ARY PI TTM AN , EXE CU TRI

X O F TH

E ESTATE OF LONNI

E PITT M AN, DECEAS

ED
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 29/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L . KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: DAW N E. F ULCE THO M AS W . TYN ER T. HUN T COL E, J R. JA M E S G O R D O N H O U S E , III LAU RI N D AV I S M c GU FF EE TI M O TH Y H U TSO N J O N ES R O B E R T M . A R E N T S O N , J R . A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EE: J O H N TI M O TH Y G I V EN S TI M OTH Y W . PORTER PA TR I CK C. M A LO U F NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 10/ 14/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 1 5 8 4 - S CTTRA NE US, I NC. FORM

ERL Y KNOW

N AS AM ER ICA N

STA N DAR D , I N C. , FL O W

SER VE U

S, I NC . , AS S UC CESSOR TO RO CKW ELL M A N U F A C T U R IN G C O . , EM

ER S O N EL E C T R IC CO. , GARLOCK S

EAL I NG TECHNO LOGI

ES , LL C, S U C C ES S O R B Y M ER G ER TO G

A R L O C K , I N C ., S EP CO CORP ORAT

ION A ND F UR ON C OM P AN Y
v. MAR Y P I T T MAN A ST HE E X E C UT R I X OF T HE ES TAT E OF LONNI

E PITT M AN D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 29/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : W I NS T ON L . KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: T. HUN T COL E, J R. JA M E S G O R D O N H O U S E , III LAU RI N D AV I S M c GU FF EE M AR Y W I NT E R V AN S L YKE RONALD G. P ERE S I CH M I CH AE L E . W HI T E HE AD TI M OTH Y H UD SON J ON ES CLA I RE W . KETN ER J OHN ERNE S T W ADE, J R. SHA RO N F. BRI DG ES W I LL I AM BUCKLE Y ST EW ART, S R. RO BE RT P . T HOMP S ON DAW N E. F ULCE THO M AS W . TYN ER W ALTER W . DU KES AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : J OHN T I M OT HY GI VE NS TI M OTHY W . P ORTE R NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 10/ 14/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 1 5 9 9 - S CT

### 3

G A R D N ER D EN V

ER , IN C . , G EN ERA L EL E C T

R IC COM PANY, THE GORM

AN-RUPPCOM

PANY, ER R ON E OU S L Y NA MED A ND S

ER V ED A ST

HE GO RM AN -RU PP CO M

PAN Y, I ND I VI DU ALLY A ND A SS UC C

ES S OR I N I NT ER ES T TO C . H. WH EEL ER MF G. C O . , P

A T T ER S O N P U MP C O MP A N Y , I P T P U MP S , A N D E C O NO MY PUM PS , DORR- OLI VER, I

NC. , KEEL ER/

DORROLI VER, ERRONEOUSL Y S UED ASDORRO L I V ER , I N C ., S U L Z ER P U M P S(U S ), I N C ., W A R R EN P U M P S , I N C ., W A R R EN -R U P P , I N C ., AN D YU BA HEA T

T RA NSFER L L C. , RA P IDAMER ICA N C OR P ORAT ION
v. M ARY PI TTM AN , EXE CU TRI

X O F TH

E ESTATE OF LONNI

E PITT M AN, DECEAS

ED D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 29/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : W I NS T ON L . KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: T. HUN T COL E, J R. JA M E S G O R D O N H O U S E , III LAU RI N D AV I S M c GU FF EE ROBER T M . ARENTS ON, J R. AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : J OHN T I M OT HY GI VE NS TI M OTH Y W . PORTER P AT RI CK C. M AL OUF NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 10/ 14/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n D ece m ber2002, L onni e Pit t m an fi l ed an asbest os sui tagai ns tthe above- l i s t ed ent i t i es ( col l ect i vel y r ef err ed t o as “A ppel l ant s ”) , al ong w i th num er ous other s . I tw as l at er

### 4

d isco v ere d that L o n n ie ha d d ied lo n g b efo re the suitw as e v er fil ed
. M ary P ittm an , L o n n ie’s
w ido w , a tt em p ted to su b sti tute h erse lf a s the p rop er p lai n ti ff. L ater, in A u g u st 20 0 5 , M ary f i l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntas exec utr i x of L onni e’ s es t at e. W e mustdeci de w hethert he D ece m ber2002 compl ai nt

— f i l ed i n the name of

a dea d per s on— w as a nul l i ty, and, i f s o,
w h e th e r M a ry n e v e rt h e le s s c o u ld b e s u b s titu te d a s th e p ro p e r p a rt y to th a t c o m p la in t. W e f i nd thatthe D ece m ber2002 compl ai ntw as a nul l i t y, and as s uch, M ary coul d notbe
s ubs t i tut ed t o i t . B utouri nqui r y does notend t her e. W e al s o m us tdet erm i ne t he ef f ectof M ar y’ s 20 05 a mend e d c ompl a i nt . Thi s a mend e d c ompl a i nt , tho ug h i ns t i tut e d b y a pr oper party, w as f

i l ed out s i de the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . B utunde rM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s i s an aff

i rm at i ve d efense that can be w ai ved i n cert ai n ci rcum st ances. W e m ust deci de w hetheral l orcert ai n A ppel l ant s have w ai ved the defense her e. W e f i nd thatt hey have not
. B eca us e the i ni t i al com plai ntw as a nul l i ty, and bec aus e M ary’ s 2005 amended compl ai ntw as b arr ed by the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , s um m ary j udgm ents houl d gr ant ed f or A p p e lla n ts . W e th e re fo re re v e rs e a n d re n d e r t h e ju d g m e n t o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rt . FACTS ¶2. In D ecem ber 200 2, R ob i n C . N et t l es and L on nie Pi t t m an fi l ed an asbest os sui t against ei ghty- f ournamed def

endant s and s ever al J ohn D oes . I n the f ol l ow i ng m onths , R obi n and L o n n ie fi le d tw o a m e n d e d c o m p la in ts th a t a d d e d h u n d re d s m o re d e fe n d a n ts . ¶ 3 . O n A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , o n e o f th e d e fe n d a n ts, w h o h a s s in c e b e e n d ism iss e d fro m th is
c a se , fil e d a su g g e stio n o f d e a th sh o w in g tha t L o n n ie h a d d ied o n M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 1

— n e a rly tw o year s bef

or e t he or i gi nal sui thad been f i l ed. Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ counse l re s ponded days l at erby

### 5

f i l i ng a mot i on t o s ubs t i tut e M ary C . Pi t t m an, L onni e’ s w i dow , as a pl ai nt i f f
. O ne day a f

t er th e m o tio n to s u b s titu te w a s fi le d , a n o rd e r g ra n tin g s u b s titu tio n w a s e n te re d
. ¶ 4 . O n A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , n u m e ro u s d e fe n d a n ts, in c lu d in g se v e ra l w h o a re p a rties to th is app eal , fi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, or i n the al t ernat i ve, t o sever R ob i n’s and L on nie’ s cl ai m s. T he m oti on soughtdi s m i s s al of L onni e’ s cl ai m s on the bas i s thathe had pr edec eas ed the fi li n g o f th e su it
. T h e c ir cu itc o u rtc o n d u cted a h ea ri n g o n this m o ti o n an d , o n e m o n th later, th e c la im s w e re s e v e re d b y a g re e d o rd e r. ¶ 5 . O n M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , c e rta in d e fe n d a n ts n o tice d a h e a ri n g o n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , fo r th e ir
m o ti o n to dism iss, or alt ern ati v ely, m o ti o n for a m o re de fi n it e statem en t, m o ti o n t o req u ir e p arti cu lari ty u n d er R u le 9(b ) of the M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, an d m o ti o n for a pr ot ect i ve or der
. O n the dat e of the hear i ng, the part i es e xecut ed an a gr eed or derr equi r i ng pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el t o f

i l e an am ended c om pl ai ntthatconf or m ed w i th the r equi r ement s s et f orth i n Harold’s A uto P ar t s, I nc. , v. Mangi alar di , 8 8 9 S o . 2 d 4 9 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ), an d its p ro g e n y . ¶6. O n A ugus t22, 20 05 , an am end ed com plai nt w as fi l ed nami ng M ary C . Pi t t m an, E xecutr i x of

the E s t at e of

Lonni e Pi t t m an, a s the pl ai nt i f f
. T he amended compl ai ntal l eged thatL onni e’ s exposur e t o as bes t os had ca us ed hi m t o s uf f ernum er ous as bes t os - r el at ed in ju rie s a n d , u lti m a tely , d e a th . E a c h o f th e A p p e lla n ts a n sw e re d th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t,
a s s e rt in g th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s a s a d e fe n s e . ¶7. A bouttw o mont hs l at er , on O ct ober14, 2005, G ar dnerD enver , I nc. , G ener al E l ectr i c, C om pany, G or m an- R upp C o. , D orr - O l i ver , I nc. , K eel er/ D orr - O l i ver , err oneous l y s ued as D orr - O l i ve r , I nc . , Su l z e rPu mps ( U S) , I nc . , W a rr e n Pumps , I nc . , W a rr e n- Rupp, I nc. , and

### 6

Y uba H eatT r ans f

er , Inc . , fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s and mot i on f orpr ot ect i ve or der
. T r ane U S, I nc. , f

or m er l y know n as A m er i can St andar d, Inc . , and E m er s on E l ectr i c C o. , l at erj oi ned thi s m ot i on, as w el l
. T hes e par t i cul ardef endant s , al l part i es t o thi s appea l , w i l l be r ef err ed t o her ei naf

t eras the “G ar dner
- T r ane A ppel l ant s . ” T he G ar dner
- T r ane A ppel l ant s as s er t ed th a t th e su b stitu tio n o f M a ry w a s im p ro p e r u n d e r R u le 2 5 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e, and thatthe ent i r e m att ers houl d be di s m i s s ed bec aus e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed. T hey f

ur thera s ked thata l l di s covery be s t ayed. N o he ar i ng on thi s m ot i on w as re q u e s te d a t th e tim e . ¶8. V ery l i t t l e act i on t ook pl ace f or m or e than tw enty m onths unt i l M ay 31, 2007, w hen M ary not i ced a depos t i on. D ays l at er , on J une 6, 2007, s om e tw enty and a ha l f m onths af

t er f i l i ng i t s ans w ert o M ary’ s amended compl ai nt , G ar l ock S eal i ng T echnol ogi es , L L C , f i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . G ar l ock mai nt ai ned that , s i nce Lonni e had di ed bef or e the compl ai ntw as f

i l ed, the i ni t i al c om pl ai ntw as a nul l i ty. G ar l ock f ur thera l l eged thatthe 2005
a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s b a rr e d b y th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . ¶9. O n J une 8, 2007, both G ar l ock and the G ar dner
- T r ane A ppel l ant s not i ced a hea r i ng o n th e irre s p e c tiv e m o tio n s . ¶10. A he ar i ng w as he l d i n A ugus t2007 on G ar l ock’ s M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent and on the G ar dner
- T r ane A ppel l ant s ’ M ot i on t o D i s m i s s and M ot i on f orPr ot ect i ve O r der
. T he ci r cui tc our tde ni ed both pa r t i es ’ m ot i ons . I tde ni ed G ar l ock’ s M ot i on f orR econs i der at i on, as w el l
. G ar l ock s oughti nt er l ocut ory r evi ew of thi s de ci s i on, butthi s C ou rtdeni ed G a rl o c k ’s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly
.

### 7

¶11. O n F ebruary 12, 2008, a m ot i on for tr i al sett i ng w as fi l ed. T he f ol l ow i ng w eek, on February 21, 2008, T r ane f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s on gr ounds t hatt he ci r cui tcour tl acke d
s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi red. T r ane purpor t ed that i t h ad rece n tl y disco v ere d th at M ary w as n o t th e d u ly-ap p o inted ex ec u tr ix o f L o n n ie’s estate a t th e ti m e sh e fi led the 20 0 5 am en d ed co m p lai n t. T ran e a ll eg ed that, at th e ti m e M ary f i l ed the 2005 amended compl ai nt , s he had nott aken the oath of of f i ce r equi ed by l aw , that l ett er s t es t ament ary had notbeen i s s ued, thatshe had i n f actabandone d the pr obat e of L o n n ie’s w il l, an d that the c h an ce ry c lerk h ad d ism issed L o n n ie’s estate m att er d u e to M ary ’s fa ilu re to p ro s e c u te . A ll A p p e lla n ts jo in e d T ra n e ’s m o tio n to d is m is s . ¶1 2 . A few m o n ths later, o n Ju ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , G arloc k fil ed it s sec o n d m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm ent . G ar l ock ar gued once agai n thatthe i ni t i al , 2002 compl ai ntw as a nul l i ty, and that the s t atut e of

i m i t at i ons had expi r ed. Ital s o as s ert ed thatM ary l acke d s t andi ng t o f i l e the 2005 amended compl ai ntbeca us e s he w as notexec utr i x atthe t i m e. M ary r es ponded by f i l i ng a mot i on i n l i m i ne and mot i on t o s tr i ke. She ar gued thatG ar l ock’ s s econd mot i on f or s um m ary j udgm entw as a m er e r epet i t i on o f i s s ues pre vi ous l y consi der ed and di s pos ed of by the ci r cui tcou rt . S he m oved f ur thert o s tr i ke port i ons of any f i l i ngs thats i m pl y r ehas hed is s u e s a lr e a d y d e c id e d
. ¶1 3. Fol l ow i ng a h e a r i ng o n A ug us t2 1, 2 00 8, the ci r cui tcour tdeni ed Tra ne’ s and G a rlo c k ’s m o tio n s. It als o d e n ied M a ry ’s m o tio n to strik e . T h e re a fte r, v a rio u s A p p e llan ts f i l ed thr ee s epar at e pet i t i ons fori nt er l ocut ory appeal
. W e gr ant ed t hos e pet i t i ons , s t ayed the p ro c e e d in g s , a n d c o n s o lid a te d th e ira p p e a ls
. DI S CU S S I ON

### 8

¶ 1 4 . D e n ia ls o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . B urley v. D ouglas , 26 So. 3d 1013 , 1016 (M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng Mo n sa n to v. H a ll , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n ly w h e re “ th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s a n d ad m iss io n s o n fil e , to g e th e r w ith the aff id a v its, if an y , sh o w tha t th e re is no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat er i al fa ctand t hatt he m ovi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent
as a mat t erof

l aw . ” M i ss. R . C i v. P . 5 6(c)
. T he evi dence m us tbe cons i der ed i n the l i ght
m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p a rt y a g a in s t w h o m th e m o tio n is m a d e . I n r e E s tate of

L aughter , 23 So. 3d 1055, 1060 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng B ullock v. L i f e Ins . Co. , 872 So . 2d 65 8, 66 0 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 ))
. I . B ecaus e L onni e di e d ne ar l y t wo ye ar s be f or e t he c om pl ai nt w as fi le d , th e in it ia l c o m p la in t w a s a n u llit y . ¶15. Four m onths or s o af t er the s ugges t i on of death w as f i l ed, s ever al A ppel l ant s s ought di s m i s s al on the bas i s t hatL onni e had pr edec eas ed t he f i l i ng of the sui t . A ppel l ant s cont i nue to a rg u e v e h e m e n tly th a t th e in iti a l, D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , co m p lain t w a s a n u lli ty b e c a u se L o n n ie p re d e c e a s e d its fi lin g . W e a g re e . ¶ 1 6 . In its e a rl y d a y s , th is C o u rt h e ld th a t a d e a d p e rs o n c a n n o t in s titu te a s u it. Hum phre ys
v. I r v ine , 14 M i s s . 205, 205 (6 S
. & M . 1846)
. I n Hum phre ys , def endant s s oughtt o of

f er e v id e n c e w h ic h s h o w e d th a t th e p la in tif f w a s d e a d a t th e tim e th e s u it w a s fi le d
. I d. T he tr i al
c o u r t e x c lu d e d th is e v id e n c e . I d. Thi s Courth e l d tha tthe e vi de nc e s ho ul d no th a ve bee n excl uded, and, s i gni f

i cant l y, thatthe s ui tm us tbe aba t ed i f s uch evi dence w er e pr oven true. I d. T he C our tr eas oned thatevi dence of a pl ai nt i f

f’ s death pri or t o sui tbei ng f i l ed “r i s es above the mer e t echni cal rul es of pl eadi ng, and goes t o t he r i ghtof the courtt o pr ocee d. ” I d.

### 9

¶1 7 . M o re tha n a c en tury after Hum phre ys , th is C o u rt a ff

ir m e d th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t “ ‘[ i]n
every act i on ther e mustbe a r eal pl ai nt i f f w ho i s a per s on i n l aw and i s pos s es s ed of a l egal ent i ty orexi s t ence as a natur al , ar t i f i ci al , or quas i
- art i f

i ci al per s on, and a s ui tbr oughti n t he name of thatw hi ch i s no ta l egal ent i ty i s a mer e nul l i ty. ’ ” Col lins v. G en. E lec. Co. , 239 M i s s . 825, 833, 123 So. 2d 609, 613 ( M i s s . 1960) ( r ecogni zi ng t he gener al rul e, butchoos i ng nott o appl y i tbeca us e the pl ai nt i f f i n thatcase had f

i l ed s ui tundera tr ade na m e) ( quot i ng 6 7 C .J .S . P ar t i es § 4 , p . 8 9 6 ). ¶18. M or e r ece nt l y, the C our tof A ppeal s st at ed t hata cl ai m fi l ed i n t he name of a dece as ed p e rs o n h a s n o h o p e o f s u c c e s s , a n d is th e re fo re fr iv o lo u s . Il l . Cen t . R . Co. v. B rou ssard , 19 S o. 3d 82 1, 82 4 (M i ss. A pp . 20 09 ) ( no t i ng that s uch cl ai m s ar e fr i viol us, bu tfi nd i ng no abu se o f d is c re tio n in th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s re fu s a l to im p o s e s a n c tio n s ). ¶19. O thercourt s agr ee thatan ac t i on f i l ed i n the name of

a dec eas ed per s on or nonexi s t ent
e n tity is a n u llity
. E
. g. , B anakus v. U nited A ir cr af

t Cor p. , 2 9 0 F . S u p p . 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 ( S . D. N. Y. 1 9 6 8 ) (pe rson al-i n

jury su itb rou g h t i n the n am e o f de ce ase d p erso n tre ated as a n u ll ity ); Adel s be r ge rv. U . S. , 58 Fed. C l
. 616, 618-19 ( Fed. C l
. 2003) ( act i on br oughti n the name of
a d e c e a s e d in d iv id u a l d e c lar e d n u ll); B lack Canyon Citi z ens Coaliti on, I

nc. v. B d. of Co u n ty C o m m ’rs o

f Mo n tro se Co u n ty , 80 P. 3d 932, 933- 35 ( C ol o. A pp. 2003) ( s ui tf i l ed in th e n a m e o f a n o n e x iste n t c o rp o ra tio n d e e m e d v o id a b in iti o ); Matthe ws v. Cle v e land , 159 G a. A pp. 6 16 , 617, 284 S. E . 2d 634, 636 ( 1981) ( dece as ed per s on cannotcomm ence an a c tio n ); L eve r ing v. R i vers ide Met hodis t Hos p. , 2 O hi o A pp. 3d 157, 159, 441 N . E . 2d 290, 2 9 1 (O h io A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) (co m p lai n t dec lared a n u ll ity w h ere p lai n ti ff died p ri o r t o it s fi li n g );

### 10

G regory v. D i Cen zo , 713 A . 2d 772 , 775 ( R . I . 1998) ( compl ai ntcomm ence d i n dece as ed p e rs o n ’s n a m e d e e m e d a n u llity ). ¶20. I n accor d w i th our l ongs t andi ng pre cede nt , w e f i nd t hatt he D ece m ber2002 compl ai nt
w a s n u ll a n d v o id
. I I . B ecaus e R ul e 1 7(a) of the M i ssi ssi p p i R u l es of C i vi l P roce dure pr e s uppos e s t he e xi s t e nc e of a v al i d “a c t i on”

— whi c h i s abs e nt h e r e — th e r u le d o e s n o t a llo w M a r y to b e s u b s ti tu te d a s p la in ti ff. ¶21. M ary ar gues that R ul e 17(a ) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ules of C i vi l Pr ocedur e al l ow s her t o be s ubs t i tut ed as a party. F or suppor t , s he poi nt s t o a dec i s i on f r om the U ni t ed St at es C o u rto f A p p ea ls f

o r th e T en th C ir cu itan alyz ing the fe d era l cou n terpa rtto M issi ssipp i’ s R u le 1 7 (a ). E s

pos ito v. U

nited States , 3 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 7 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶22. I n E sp o sito , R a y m o n d E lio E sp o sito ’s w id o w , Y o lan d a , in stitu ted a w ro n g fu l-d e a th
s u it w h ic h n a m e d R a y m o n d a s th e o n ly p la in tif f. I d . at1272. Raym ond, how ever , had di ed
a p p r o x im a te ly th re e y e a rs b e fo re th e s u it w a s fi le d
. I d. at 12 7 2 . A fed era l distri ct co u rt f ound no j us t i f

i abl e bas i s f

ors ubs t i tut i ng Y ol anda a s pl ai nt i f f and di s m i s s ed t he cas e f orl ack
o f s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . I d. a t12 72
- 73 . The U ni t e d St a t e s Cour tof A pp e a l s f

ort he T enth C i r cui taddr es s ed w hetherthe s ui t , havi ng been br oughti n the name of a dec eas ed p lai n ti ff, w as a n u ll ity , an d w h ethe r Y o land a c o u ld b e su b sti tute d a s the ri g h tf u l plainti ff. I d. at 1 2 7 7 . T h e T en th C ir cu iti n terpreted R u le 17 (a) o f th e F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re a s a llo w in g th e s u b s titu tio n o f Y o la n d a . I d. at1277-78. I tre as oned thatR ul e 17( a) does not
re q u ir e th a t th e o ri g in a l p la in tif f h a v e c a p a c ity to s u e . I d. a t 1 2 7 7 . It ex p lain e d fu rth e r th a t,
acc or di ng t o t he l anguage of R ul e 17( a) , the s ubs t i tut i on of the r eal party i n i nt er es ti s t o have “the s ame ef

f ect ” as i f the s ui ti ni t i al l y ha d be en comm ence d i n the s ubs t i tut i ng party’ s name.

### 11

I d. a t1 27 7- 78 ( qu ot i ng Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 7( a ) )
. The Te nth Ci r c ui te mpha s i z e d he a vi l y t hat R u le 1 7 (a ) is d e s ig n e d to p re v e n t f o rf e itu re a n d m u s t b e a p p lie d lib e ra lly
. I d. at1278 ( ci t i ng F e d R . C iv . P . 1 7 a d v is o ry c o m m itte e n o te s (1 9 6 6 a m e n d m e n t) ). ¶ 2 3 . R u le 1 7 (a ) o f th e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re is th e sa m e a s fe d e ra l ru le 1 7 (a). A s a resu lt , w e c o n side r E sp o sito ’ s cons truct i on of f eder al rul e 17( a) as per s uas i ve fo r h o w w e s h o u ld c o n s tru e o u r r u le
. B row n v. Credit Ctr. , In c ., 4 4 4 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 n .1 ( M i s s . 1983)
. Though E sp o sito i s per s uas i ve, i ti s notbi ndi ng. H ence w e ar e f r ee t o deci de
w h e th e r t o a d o p t its c o n s tru c tio n o f R u le 1 7 (a ). ¶24. T he hol di ng i n E sp o sito is w e ll-re a so n e d a n d ten a b le, b u t it is n o t th e o n ly p lau sib le in te rp re ta tio n o f R u le 1 7 ( a ). N o r i s it th e in te rp re ta tio n th a t b e s t c o m p o rt s w ith o u r l a w . ¶ 2 5 . E sp o sito co rrectl y n o tes that n o thing in R u le 1 7 (a) req u ir es that the o ri g inal p lai n ti ff h a v e th e c a p a c ity to s u e . I d. at1277. Y etcapac i ty i s notre al l y t he i s s ue i n a cas e l i ke the
o n e b e fo re u s . “ C a p a c it y t o s u e ” re la te s to a p a rt y ’s ri g h t to litig a te . G li c ks te in v. Sun B a n k / Mi a mi , N. A. , 9 2 2 F . 2 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 0 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by Saxton v. A C

F I ndus. , I nc. , 2 5 4 F . 3 d 9 5 9 , 9 6 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t i n g 6 A C. W r i g h t , A. M ille r & M . K a n e , Feder alPrac t i ce and P r ocedur e § 1 5 4 2 , at 3 2 7 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 0 ); I ow a Coal Min in gC o ., I

n c . v. Mo n ro e Co u n ty , 55 5 N . W . 2 d 41 8 , 4 2 8 (Iow a 1 9 9 6 ) (qu o ti n g 5 9 A m . Ju r. 2d P ar t i es § 24, at410 ( 1987) )
. I thas r ef er ence t o l egal di s abi l i ty, s uch as i nf ancy orm ent al in c o m p e te n c y . I

ow a Coal , 555 N . W . 2d at428 ( quot i ng 59 A m . J ur . 2d P ar t i es § 2 4 , at 41 0 ). O u r c o n c e rn , r a th e r, is a d is tin c t b u t c lo s e ly re la te d c o n c e p t: le g a l e x is te n c e . See I ow a Coal , 55 5 N . W . 2d. at428 ( not i ng thatcapa ci ty t o s ue i s di s t i nctbutcl os el y al l i ed t o l egal exi s t ence ) ( quot i ng 59 A m . J ur . 2d P ar t i es § 24, at410)
. L egal exi s t ence i s a bas i c thr es hol d;

### 12

it s e rv e s a s a p re re q u is ite fo r h a v in g c a p a c ity to s u e . See A del s per ger , 58 Fed. C l
. at618 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)
. L egal e xi s t ence means , a ta mi ni m um , thatthe i ndi vi dual s ui ng i s al i ve. ¶26 . E ven con ceding that R ule 17 (a) do es no t speak t o w hether the ori ginal plai nti ff m ust hav e capa ci ty to sue, i tnec essa ri ly presupp oses that the p l ai nti ff fi l i ng sui tl egall y ex i st s. T he rul e p rovi des that“[ e] very act i on sh a ll b e p ro se c u ted in n a m e o f th e re a l p a rty in i nt er es t , ” and that“[ n] o act i on sh a ll b e d ism iss e d o n th e g ro u n d th a t itis n o t p ro se c u ted in the name of

the r eal pa r ty i n i nt er es tunt i l a r eas onabl e t i m e has be en al l ow ed af t erobj ect i on

. . . fo r s u b stitu tio n [] o f th e re a l p a rty in in ter e st . . . .” M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 7 (a ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). T h e ru le th u s ta k e s fo r g ra n te d o r p re s u m e s th a t a v a lid “ a c tio n ” e x is ts . See M i ss. R . C iv . P . 1 7 (a ); Ma tth e ws , 284 S. E . 2d. at635- 36 ( i nt erpr et i ng a s t atut e s i m i l art o R ul e 17( a) in lik e m a n n e r); G regory , 713 A . 2d a t773 ( cons trui ng Rul e 17 of R hode I s l and’ s Super i or C our tR ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e i n a s i m i l arf as hi on)
. B ut , a s w e have al r eady di s cus s ed, no “a cti o n ” e x ist s w h ere the o ri g inal c o m p lai n t i s fil ed b y a d ea d p erso n . S u ch co m p lai n ts are nul l and voi d fr om t he out s et . I n short , w i thouta l i ve per s on i ni t i at i ng sui t , ther e ca n be no
a c tio n ; a n d w ith o u t a n a c tio n , s u b s titu tio n c a n n o t b e h a d u n d e r R u le 1 7 (a ). ¶27. W e f

i nd thatR ul e 17( a) does notal l ow M ary t o be s ubs t i tut ed as a pa r ty. B eca us e the D ec em b er 2 0 0 2 co m p lai n t w as a n u ll ity , a v ali d ac ti o n w as n ev er c o m m en ce d
. A n d w h ere a v a lid a c tio n d o e s n o t e x is t, R u le 1 7 (a ) d o e s n o t a p p ly
. ¶28. I n a s i m i l ar vei n, w e f i nd f ur ther that an amended compl ai nt cannot r el at e back t o an o ri g in a l c o m p la in t t h a t w a s a n u llity
. See T ol li verex r el

. W r ongf ul D eat h B enef i ciar ies of G r een v. Mladineo , 9 8 7 S o . 2 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 5 (M iss. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e b asic ration ale is th at th ere i s s i m pl y nothi ng t o amend. A s a r es ul t , w her e the or i gi nal compl ai nti s a nul l i ty, any

### 13

amended compl ai nt s f

i l ed l at erm us tst and on t hei row n m er i t s . T hi s l eads us t o cons i dert he is s u e s s u rr o u n d in g M a ry ’s 2 0 0 5 a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. I I I . B eca us e M ar y i s a “l i s t e d r e l at i ve ” unde r our wrong f ul - de at h s t at ut e , s he had s t andi ng t o f

i l e t he A ugus t 20 05 am e nde d c om pl ai nt r e ga rdl es s of whet he r s he w a s d u ly q u a lif

ie d a s e x e c u tr ix o f L o n n ie ’s e s ta te a t t h e ti m e o f f ilin g . ¶2 9. A ppel l ant s ar gue tha tM a r y l a c ked s t andi ng t o f i l e t he A ugus t2005 amended compl ai ntbeca us e s he w as notthe dul y- qual i f i ed exe cutr i x of

L onni e’ s es t at e atthe t i m e s he filed th e c o m p lain t. T h e y c o n ten d , p rim a rily , tha t M a ry n e v e r to o k th e o a th o f o ffic e th a t is
re q u ir e d b e fo re le tte rs te s ta m e n ta ry c a n b e is s u e d
. See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 91- 7- 41 ( R ev. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶3 0 . T h ere is n o n ee d to d iscu ss the series o f m isha p s su rrou n d ing L o n n ie’s estate m att er, o rwh e th e rM a r y wa s d u l y q u a l i f i e d a s e x e c u tr i x wh e n s h e f i l e d s u i t . Un d e rM i s s i s s i p p i l a w, M a ry h a d s ta n d in g to fi le s u it r e g a rd le s s . ¶31. I n her 2005 amended comp l ai nt , M ary s ought damages f or i nj ur i es that L onni e had
s uf f er ed as a r es ul tof

hi s expos ur e t o as bes t os . A tno poi ntdi d s he s eek t o r ecove rdamages fori njur i es that s he o r anyon e el se had su ff ered as a r esulto f L o n n i e’s death. H er cl ai m s, theref ore, are bestcharact eri zed as survi val cl ai m s r at her than true w rongful -death clai m s. See Caves v. Y

arbr ough , 991 So. 2d 142, 149 ( M i s s . 2008)
. Sur vi val cl ai m s ar e thos e that
s e e k to re c o v e r d a m a g e s th a t th e d e c e d e n t c o u ld h a v e re c o v e re d h a d d e a th n o t e n s u e d
. I d. at150. T hey r ef

ert o dam ages suf

f er ed by t he dec edentf

r om the t i m e of

i nj ury unt i l death. I d. at149 ( quot i ng Tay lorv. G idde ns , 6 1 8 S o . 2 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 0 (L a . 1 9 9 3 )). T ru e w ro n g fu l-d e a th
c laim s, o n th e o th e r h a n d , are th o se b ro u g h t to r e c o v e r d a m a g e s th a t o n e p e rso n ’s d e a th
c a u s e s to a n o th e r. Caves , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 9 .

### Miss. C od e Ann. § 91 -7-2 33 (Rev . 20 04 ). 1 

### Miss. C od e Ann. § 11 -7-1 3 (R ev. 2 00 4). 2 

### 14 ¶ 3 2 . E v e n th o u g h M iss iss ip p i h a s a se p a ra te su rv iv a l sta tu te, o u r w ro n g fu l-d e a th sta tu te 1 2
e n c o m p a ss e s a ll c laim s, in c lu d in g su rv iv a l cla im s, re su lti n g fro m th e to rt th a t p ro x im a tely
c a u s e d th e d e a th
. I

d. at149-50. A nd w her e the s ame w r ongf ul conductcaus es both per s onal injury an d d ea th— as is all eg ed h e re— o n ce d ea th o cc u rs, the p erso n al-i n jury claim s are e m b ra c e d in th e “o n e su it” fo r w ro n g fu l d e a th
. B u rley v. D ouglas , 26 So. 3d 1013, 1019
n .6 (M iss
. 2 0 0 9 ). In su c h ca se s, o n c e the p e rso n d ies , th e su rv iv a l cla im s a re n o t ac tio n a b le b y th e e s ta te u n d e r t h e s u rv iv a l s ta tu te . I d. ¶33. H er e, M ary a l l eges thatthe A ppel l ant s ’ w r ongful con du ctcaused L onni e var i ous injuries, an d ult im ately, de ath. A s a re su lt , o n ce L o n n ie ha d d ied, an y su rviv al claim s w ere s u b s u m e d w ith in th e “ o n e s u it” fo r w ro n g fu l d e a th
. See id . W e t hus construe M ary’ s 2005 amended compl ai ntas havi ng been br oughtunderthe w r ong ful
- death s t atut e. T he im p lic a tio n s o f t h is a re s ig n if ic a n t w ith re g a rd to s ta n d in g . ¶34. T he w r ongf

ul
- death s t atut e al l ow s a s ui tt o be br oughtby the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, ce rt ain list ed relati v es, an d “intere sted p artie s.” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7-1 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). T her e i s no di s put e i n thi s cas e thatM ary i s L onni e’ s w i dow
. A dece dent ’ s w i dow i s one of the “l i s t ed r el at i ves ” enumer at ed i n Sect i on 11- 7- 13. M i ss. C od e A nn. § 11- 17- 13 ( R ev. 2004)
. C ons equent l y, the w r ongf ul
- death s t atue conf

err ed on M ary s t andi ng t o br i ng t he 2 0 0 5 a m e n d e d c o m p lain t re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r sh e h a d b e e n fo rm a lly ap p o in ted a s e x e c u trix of L onni e’ s es t at e w hen the 2005 amended compl ai ntw as fi l ed. W e ther ef or e f i nd A p p e lla n ts ’ l a c k -o f- s ta n d in g a rg u m e n t to b e w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 15

I V . B ecaus e A ppel l ant s have not act i vel y part i ci pat ed i n t he l i t i gat i on, t hey have not w ai ved t he s t at ut e- of

- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e. ¶35. M ary as s ert s that the “pr i m ary i s s ue” on app eal i s w hether A ppel l ant s have w ai ved th e irs ta tu te -o f- lim ita tio n s d e fe n s e . ¶36. N egl i gence or pr oduct s - l i abi l i ty caus es of act i on that i nvol ve l at ent di s eas es , s uch as
as bes t os i s , a r e s ub

j e c tt o the thr e e - ye a rs t a tut e of l i mi t a t i on s un de rSe c t i on 15
- 1- 49. O w ens -I l linois, I nc. v. E dw ar ds , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 7 0 6 -0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ) (a p p ly in g th e sta tu te t o a sui tforas bes t os - r el at ed i nj ur i es )
. I n s uch ca s es , “[ t ] he ca us e of act i on acc rues and the l i m i t at i ons per i od begi ns t o run w hen the pl ai nt i f f c an r eas onabl y be he l d t o have know l edge of the i nj ury ordi s eas e. ” I d. a t 7 0 9 . ¶37. T he par t i es her e do notdi s put e t hatt he t hr ee- yearst atut e of l i m i t at i ons appli es , nor d o th e y a r g u e a b o u twh e n th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s b e g a n t o ru n . Ap p e l l a n t s a s k th a twe as s um e the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons began t o run on the dat e of L onni e’ s death, M ar ch 11, 2001. M ary does notcont es tthe poi nt . A tt he A ugus t2007 hear i ng, s he r epr es ent ed that , s i nce the D ece m ber2002 compl ai ntw as f i l ed tw o year s af

t er L onni e’ s death, s he had one year
r emai ni ng t o f

i l e s ui t . A nd atthe D ece m ber2007 hear i ng, s he w ents o f aras t o acknow l edge th a t if th e A p p e llan ts h a d ra ise d th e s tatu te- o f-lim itatio n s d e fe n se b a c k in 2 0 0 4 , the y “ q u ite p o s s ib ly ” w o u ld h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s fu l. ¶38. W e t hu s w i l l assum e that the s t atue of l i m i t at i ons began t o run on M ar ch 11, 2001. B as ed on thatdat e, t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed on M ar ch 11, 2 00 4. T his w oul d put M a ry ’s 2 0 0 5 a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w e ll o u tsid e th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, u n les s th e A p p e llan ts

### 16

have w ai ved thi s as a def ens e. M ary ar gues thatA ppel l ant s have done s o by w ai t i ng t oo l ong t o as s ertand pur s ue the def ens e, w hi l e si m ul t aneous l y act i vel y part i ci pat i ng i n the l i t i gat i on. ¶39. W ai veri s m att erof l aw w her e the mat er i al f act s and ci r cumst ance s ar e undi s put ed or c le a rl y e s ta b lis h e d
. B ott v. J. F . Shea Co. , I

nc. , 388 F. 3d 530, 534 ( 5th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Firs t In ters tate B ank of

A r i z ona, N . A . v. I nter f und C or p. , 9 2 4 F . 2 d 5 8 8 , 5 9 5 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ))
. ¶40. I n M

S Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 So. 2d 167 ( M i s s . 2006) , w e f ound thatthe rig h t t o co m p e l arb itratio n m a y b e w a iv e d if th e re h a s b e e n a su b sta n tial a n d u n re a so n a b le del ay i n the as s ert i on and pur s ui tof the r i gh t , coupl ed w i th act i ve part i ci pat i on i n t he litig a tio n p ro c e s s . Hor ton , 926 So. 2d at180-81. P r ej udi ce t o the party r es i s t i ng arbi tr at i on a ls o w a s n o te d a s a fa c to r t h a t s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d
. I d. a t18 0 n . 7 ( c i t i ng R u sse l l v. P er f or m ance Toyota, I

nc. , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ))
. ¶4 1. I ts houl d be poi nt ed o uttha t , h i s t or i c al l y, arbi t r at i on has been c ons i der ed an a ltern a tiv e re so lu tio n p ro c e ss , a p a rt y ’s rig h t to w h ich is c o n sid e re d w a iv e d if lit ig a tio n is p u rs u e d
. See Cox v. How ard, W eil , L abouis s e, Fr iedr i chs, I nc. , 619 So. 2d 908, 913- 14 ( M i ss. 19 93 ) ( ci t i ng Cor nel l & Co. v. B arber& R os s Co. , 3 6 0 F . 2 d 5 1 2 , 5 1 3 ( D. C. C i r . 1966) ) ( s t at i ng that , underthe Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct , a party w ai ves the r i ghtt o demand
a rb itratio n w h e re itac tiv e ly p a rticip a tes in a law su it o r ta k e s o th e r a c tio n in c o n sis ten t w ith th e ri g h t)
. Hor ton , h o w e v e r, e x te n d e d th is c o n c e p t b e y o n d th e a rb itr a tio n c o n te x t. ¶42. I n Hor ton , w e added that “[ a] def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o t i m el y and r eas onabl y r ai s e and pur s ue the enf

or cementof

any af f i r m at i ve def

ens e orotheraf

f i r m at i ve mat t erorr i ghtw hi ch
w ou l d s e r ve t o t e r mi na t e o rs t a y[ ] the l i t i ga t i on , c ou pl e d w i th a c t i ve p a r t i c i pa t i on i n t he

### 17

l i t i gat i on pr oces s , w i l l or di nar i l y s erve as a w ai ver . ” Hor ton , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d at 1 8 0 . W e expl ai ned that“p ursui t ” means m or e than s i m pl y as s ert i ng the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e i n a p le a d in g . I

d. at 18 1 n . 9 . A d efe n d an t m u st bring the a ffi rm ati v e d efe n se to the c o u rt ’s
a tte n tio n b y m o tio n a n d re q u e s t a h e a ri n g . I d. ¶43. W e have s i nce appl i ed Hor ton to ana l yze w hetherthe af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of the
s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s w a s w a iv e d
. Spann v. D iaz , 98 7 S o. 2d 44 3, 44 6-48 (M i ss. 20 08 ); Jones v. Flu or D an i el Ser vs . Cor

p. , 32 So. 3d 417, 420- 21 ( M i s s . 2010)
. T hes e ca s es ill u stra te th a t th e s ta tu te- o f-lim itatio n s d e fe n se c a n b e w a iv e d e v e n w h e re th e d e fe n se is
a s s e rt e d in a d e fe n d a n t’ s in itia l p le a d in g o r a n s w e r. Spa nn , 9 8 7 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 6 ; Jones , 32 So. 3 d a t 4 2 0 . ¶ 4 4 . E a c h o f th e A p p e llan ts in th is c a se ra ise d th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s a s a d e fe n se in its
a n sw e r to M a ry ’s 2 0 0 5 a m e n d e d co m p lain t. B u t th e ir ac tio n s, o r lac k the re o f, fo llo w in g th e ir
a n s w e rs c re a te a n is s u e o f w h e th e r t h e y w a iv e d th e d e fe n s e . ¶4 5 . A p p ell ants pu rs ued the st atute- of- l i m i t at i on s defense atdif fer ent poi nts . T he G ardnerT r ane A ppel l ant s ra i s ed t he def ens e i n t hei rO ct ober14, 2005, m ot i on t o di s m i s s and mot i on for p rotec ti v e o rde r, fi led ju st tw o m o n ths a ft er th e 2 0 0 5 a m en d ed co m p lai n t. T h e G ard n erT r ane A ppel l ant s , how ever , di d notpur s ue a he ar i ng o n t hei rm ot i on unt i l J une 8, 2007, nearl y tw o y ears aft er M ary had fi l ed the 20 05 am end ed co m plai nt. G arl ock w ai t ed alm ost tw o year s bef

or e pur s ui ng the s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons de f

ens e i n i t s J une 6, 2007, m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent . Rapi d- A m er i can Corpor at i on, Sepco C orpor at i on and Fur on C om pany, an d Fl owse r ve U S, I nc . , w a i t e d e ve n l on ge r ; the y f i r s tpu r s ue d the s t a tue - of
- l i mi t a t i ons d e fe n s e b y jo in in g T ra n e ’s F e b ru a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , m o tio n to d is m is s .

### 18

¶4 6 . E ac h o f th e A p p ell an ts th en w ait ed a lm o st tw o y ea rs o r lon g er to p u rsue the statu te-oflim ita tio n s d e fe n s e . T h is c e rt a in ly c o n s titu te s a lo n g d e la y . See id. (in d ica tin g th a t an e ig h tm onth del ay i s t oo l ong)
. B uta l engthy de l ay typi cal l y i s note nough t o cons t i tut e w ai verof
a n aff irm a tiv e d e fe n se . See i d. a t 1 8 0 . Hor ton i ns truct s that , or di nar i l y, ther e mustbe “a
s ubs t ant i al and unr eas onabl e del ay i n pur s ui ng the r i ght ” pl us “ac t i ve part i ci pat i on i n the litig a tio n ” b e fo re w a iv e r w ill b e fo u n d
. I d. at179- 81. T hes e det erm i nat i ons , f ur therm or e, a re to b e m a d e o n a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is
. I d. a t 1 8 1 . ¶4 7. M ar y poi nt s t o var i ou s a c t i on s b y A pp e l l a nt s whi c h s he s ays amount t o act i ve part i ci pati on i n the l i t i gati on . Fi rs t , an agreed schedu l i ng orderand an order s et t i ng the case f ortr i al w er e ent er ed on M ay 20, 2004. T her eaf t er , on J une 22, 2005, G ar l ock’ s att or neys ent er ed i nt o an agr eed or dera l l ow i ng M ary t o f i l e the 2005 amended compl ai nt . T hen, on O ct ober21, 2005, G ar l ock f i l ed des i gnat i ons of

expert s , f

actw i tnes s es , and exhi bi t s . A nd
o n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , G arloc k fi led a m o ti o n t o co m p el an d n o ti ce o f he aring
. O n e m o n th later, G a rl o c k c a n c e lle d th is h e a ri n g b y fi lin g a n o tic e o f c a n c e lla tio n . ¶48. W e pl ace l i t t l e w ei ghton the M ay 2004 agr eed schedu l i ng or derand t he June 2005 agr eed or derthatal l ow ed M ar y t o f i l e the 2005 amended compl ai nt . A ppel l ant s poi ntout thatthe M ay 2004 a gr eed s chedul i ng or dera nd the or ders ett i ng the cas e f ortr i al pert ai ned t o R obi n’ s , notL onni e’ s , cl ai m s. A ddi t i onal l y, the ci r cumst ance s l eadi ng up t o the J une 2005 agr eed o rde rar e s om ew hatm ur ky. A ppel l ant s al l ege thatdur i ng the O ct ober2004 heari ng on theirm oti on t o d i sm i ss, or al t ernat i vely, to sev er R ob i n’s and L on nie’ s cl ai m s, J u d g e Ki d d s t a t e d th a th e wo u l d r e s e r v e ru l i n g o n th e i rmo t i o n t o di s mi s s u n t i l th e c l a i ms
w er e s ever ed. M ary does notdeny t hi s al l egat i on; s he s i m pl y i ns i s t s thati ti s uns uppor t ed

### 19

i n the r ecor d beca us e no t r ans cr i ptexi s t s of the O ct ober2004 hear i ng. A ppel l ant s i ns i s tt hat itw as their u n d erstan d ing tha t th ey c o u ld n o t pro ce ed a n y fu rth er u n ti l R o b in’s an d L o n n ie’s cl ai m s w er e s ever ed and a n amended compl ai ntw as f i l ed. T hi s w oul d he l p t o expl ai n w hy they ent er ed the J une 2005 agr eed or derw hi ch al l ow ed pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el t o f

i l e an a m ended compl ai ntthatconf

or m ed w i th t he r equi r ement s s etf or th i n Mangi alar di . ¶4 9. G ar l ock ’ s a c t i on s f ol l owi ng the 2 00 5 a mend e d c ompl a i nts ho w thati tdi d i n f act p a rticip a te in th e lit ig a tio n , b u t i ts p a rticip a tio n falls s h o rt o f w h a t p re v io u sly h a s b e e n h e ld to c o n s titu te w a iv e r o f a n a ff ir m a tiv e d e fe n s e . See E . Mis s . S ta te Ho s p . v. A da ms , 947 So. 2d 887 , 8 89 , 8 91 (M i s s . 2007) ( w ai verof i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s and i ns uf

f i ci ency of
s e r v i c e o f

p r o c e s s f

o u n d wh e r e n o tp u r s u e d f o rmo r e th a n two y e a r s , d u r i n g wh i c h t i me def endant s f

i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , m ot i ons t o compel , m ot i on fors t atus c o n fe re n c e s, a n d m o tio n fo r a d d iti o n a l d isc o v e ry ); E s tate of G r im es v. W

ar r ington , 982 So. 2d 365, 369 ( M i s s . 2008) ( w ai verof t or t - i m m uni ty def

ens e f ound w her e notpur s ued f orf i ve ye a r s , d ur i ng whi c h t i me the c a s e was tw i c e r e s e tf ortr i a l , e xp e r t s wer e d e s i gnat ed and depos ed on t he m er i t s of the cl ai m , and def

endant s f

i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude p o rtio n s o f th e p lain tiff’s e x p e rt’s te stim o n y ); Meadow s v. B lake , 36 So. 3d 1225, 1232- 33 ( M i s s . 2010) ( def

endant s w ai ved the def ens e of pl ai nti ff s ’ f ai l ur e t o att ach a cert i f

i cat e of expertc ons ul t at i on w her e they di d notpur s ue i tf ortw o ye ar s , buta tthe s ame t i m e, f i l ed a
m o ti o n for p arti al su m m ary jud g m en t, p arti cipa ted in d isco v ery , fi led a m o ti o n to co m p e l,
e n ter e d in to th re e s c h e d u lin g o rd e rs, a n d d e sig n a ted e x p e rts); Hut z el v. Cit y of Jacks on , 33 So. 3d 1116, 119- 21 ( M i s s . 2010) ( w ai verof r i ghtt o as s ertaf

f i r m at i ve def

ens e of r el eas e and
acc or d and s at i s f

act i on f ound w her e def

endantdi d notr ai s e the def ens e i n i t s i ni t i al ans w er

### 20

a n d w a ited tw e n ty -six m o n th s to rais e it , p lu s b o th p a rties filed in ter ro g a to rie s a n d re q u e sts fo r p ro d u c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts a n d o n e p a rt y n o tic e d a d e p o s itio n ). ¶50. F urt her, w e m us t cons i der G ar l ock’ s act i ons i n cont ext . T hi s w as a m as s - t or tcas e i nvol vi ng hundr eds of

def endant s thatw as s t i l l i n i t s ear l y s t ages . N o tr i al da t e had be en s et and no w i tnes s es w er e depos ed dur i ng the l engthy de l ay. T he bul k of a ct i vi ty be tw een the 2005 amended compl ai ntand G ar l ock’ s f i r s tm ot i on for s um m ary j udgm enti nvol ved the d is m is s a l o f s e v e ra l d e fe n d a n ts . ¶51. W e f

i nd thatne i therG ar l ock norany otherA pp el l ants act i vely part i ci pated or advanc ed the l i t i gat i on b ef or e us . T hus the s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e has notbeen
w a iv e d
. CO NC L US I ON ¶52. T he st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons i n t hi s cas e expi r ed on M ar ch 11, 2004. T he D ece m ber 2002 compl ai nt , bei ng a nul l i ty, f ai l ed t o t ol l t he runni ng of the st atut e of l i m i t at i ons . W e f

i nd t hat A ppel l ant s have no tw a i ve d the i rs t a tut e - of
- l i mi t a t i on s def

ens e; ther ef

or e, w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o fi nd that M ary’ s 200 5 am end ed co m plai nt w as barr ed b y the statute of l i m i t at i on s. A c c o rd in g ly , w e re v e rs e a n d re n d e r t h e ju d g m e n t o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rt . ¶ 5 3 . R E V E R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D . CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY KI T CH E NS AN D C HA ND L E R, J J . RA ND OL P H, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶54. T he m aj or i ty of thi s C our t m i s appr ehends num er ous cas es f r om m ul t i pl e j ur i s di ct i ons i n s uppor tof

i t s de ci s i on t o r ever s e the deni al s of s um m ary j udgm enti n the C i r cui tC our tof

### 21

th e F ir st Ju d ici al D istri ct of H ind s C o u n ty. B ec au se I w o u ld fi n d th at th e ap p ell an ts fa il t o demonstr at e thatno genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t s and thatthe tr i al courts houl d be
a ffirm e d , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶55. L onni e P i t t m an die d of l ung canc eron M ar ch 11, 2001. A compl ai ntw as f i l ed on b e h a lf o f R o b in N e ttl e s a n d L o n n ie P ittm a n o n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , ag a in st m u lti p le defend ants . T he co m plaintref err ed repeatedl y thr ou gh ou tt o “P l ai nti ff s and P l ai nti ff

s’ dece dent s ” and s t at ed:

A s a di rectand proxim at e con tri bu t i ng res ultof ha vi ng i nhal ed, i nges t ed, orotherw i s e havi ng been e xpos ed t o as bes t os dur i ng t he exp osur e per i od, Pl ai nt i f f s and P l ai nt i f

f s ’ decede nt s have r ece i ved i nj ur i es , both phys i cal l y and m ent al l y, s uch as as bes t osi s, pul m onary and br onchogeni c ca r ci nom a, m e so th e lio m a , red u c e d lu n g v o lu m e , p leu ra l p laq u e s, inte rstitial lu n g fib ro sis and cardi ac an d ci rcul at ory d i sease, an d i ncreased ph ysi cal and m ental ang uis h as s oci at ed w i th i ncr eas ed sus cept i bi l i ty t o one of the f or egoi ng di s eas es ; and, ul t i m at el y death. ¶56. Pl ai nt i f

f s f i l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntw i th addi t i onal de f endant s on J anuary 30, 2003. D ef endant3M f

i l ed a sugge s t i on of dea th on A pr i l 16, 2004. T he pl ai nt i f f s i m m edi at el y f

i l ed a mot i on t o subs t i tut e M ary P i t t m an as an hei rof L onni e Pi t t m an, w hi ch the tr i al courtgr ant ed by or derf

i l ed M ay 3, 2004. ¶ 5 7 . O n A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , m u lti p le d e fe n d a n ts, in c lu d in g G a rlo c k In c ., fi le d a M o tio n to D i s m i s s , ori n t he A l t ernat i ve, t o S everC l ai m s of Lonni e Pi t t m an. O n N ovember24, 2004, the tr i al cou rtenter ed an A greed O rderof Sev erance of R ob i n C . N et t l es, st at i ng that N et t l es’ cl ai m s w oul d be tr ans f

err ed t o Pi ke C ounty. T her eaf t er , M ary Pi t t m an f

i l ed an A m ended C ompl a i nt , w hi c h was a ns w e r e d b y v a r i ou s de f e nd a nt s . V a r i ou s pl e a di ng s a nd r es pons es

### 22

w er e f i l ed overthe nextcoupl e of year s . H ow ever , i n the i nt er es tof cl ar i ty, onl y the r el evant pl eadi ngs ar e s etouther ei n. ¶58. V ar i ous def

endant s , i ncl udi ng G ar dner D enver , I nc. , fi l ed a M oti on t o D i s m i s s and M ot i on f orPr ot ect i ve O r deron O ct ober14, 2005. T he tr i al cour tent er ed an O r derD enyi ng C ert ai n D ef

endant s ’ M ot i on t o D i s m i s s and M ot i on forP r ot ect i ve O r deron O ct ober23, 2007, fin d in g th e e x iste n c e o f g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t. ¶59. O n J une 6, 2007, G ar l ock S eal i ng T echnol ogi es , L L C , ( G ar l ock) f i l ed a M ot i on f

or Sum m ary J udgm ent . T he tr i al courtdeni ed G ar l ock’ s m ot i on fors um m ary j udgm entby or der ent er ed O ct ober19, 2007, fi ndi ng t he exi s t ence of genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa ct . T he tr i al
c o u rt a ls o d e n ie d G a rl o c k ’s m o tio n to re c o n s id e r b y o rd e r e n te re d D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 . ¶60. O n February 21, 2008, T r ane U . S. , I nc. , f i l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s f or L ack of

Subj ect M at t er J uri sdi ct i on and S t atute of L i m i t at i on s. V ari ou s ot her defendan t s j oined i n thi s m ot i on. O n J ul y 18, 2008, G ar l ock f i l ed anotherM ot i on f

orS um m ary Judgm entw i th I ncorpor at ed M emora ndum i n Suppor t . O n A ugus t14, 2008, Pi t t m an f i l ed a r es pons e t o G ar l ock’ s m ot i on, as s ert i ng thatG ar l ock w as att empt i ng t o r ai s e the s ame i s s ues f ora thi r d t i m e and a s ki ng t he
courtt o s tr i ke thos e por t i ons of the m ot i on pr evi ous l y r ai s ed. O n A ugus t19, 2008, Pi t t m an f i l ed a M ot i on i n L i m i ne f orH ear i ng on A ugus t21, 2008, and M ot i on t o St r i ke Por t i ons of D ef endant s ’ M ot i ons / J oi nder s Pr evi ous l y A r gued and Ruled U pon. G ar l ock l i kew i s e f i l ed
a m o tio n to strik e P ittm a n ’s s u p p lem e n ta l r e s p o n s e to th e m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A ft er a h ea ri n g o n A u g u st 21 , 2 0 0 8 , the tri al c o u rtd en ied b o th m o ti o n s to stri k e, G arloc k ’s
m o ti o n fo r su m m ary jud g m en t, an d T ran e’s m o ti o n to d ism iss. T h ere after, G ard n er D en v er, etal
. , G ar l ock and T r ane ( her ei naf t er“ T r ane” ) f

i l ed pet i t i ons f

ori nt er l ocut ory appea l w hi ch

### 23

w er e gr ant ed by t hi s C our ton D ece m ber15, 2008. T hi s C our tf ur thers t ayed the pr ocee di ngs i n the tr i al courtand cons ol i dat ed the appe al s f orcons i der at i on. ¶61. T hi s C our t appl i es a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew of a t ri al court ’ s gr ant or deni al of
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A ikens v. W hites , 8 S o . 3d 13 9, 14 0 (M i ss. 20 08 ). “T he ev i den ce m ust be vi ew ed i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the party a gai ns tw hom the mot i on has been made,
a n d th e m o v in g p a rt y b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t n o g e n u in e is s u e o f f a c t e x is ts .” Id . ( ci t i ng He ig le v . H e ig le , 7 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 )). T h is C o u rt lo o k s a t all evi denti ary m at t ers i n the r ecord, i ncludi ng pleadi ng s, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, a d m is s io n s , a ff

id a v its , e tc . Aike ns , 8 So. 3d at140; M i s s . R . C i v. P. 56( c)
. I f ther e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f

m a t e r i a l f

a c t , th e n th e mo v i n g p a r ty i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. M i s s . R . C i v. P. 56( c)
. I f ther e i s doubtas t o w hetherornota f actexi s t s , i tshoul d be r es ol ved in fa v o r o f t h e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Aike ns , 8 So. 3d at140. ¶ 6 2 . T ra n e su b m its th a t R u le 2 5 o f th e M is s iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re p ro h ib its
su b stitu tio n w h e re th e p lain tiff w a s d e c e a se d w h e n th e s u it w a s filed . A lth o u g h th e m a jo rity fai l s t o ad dress the ap pli cabil i ty o f R ule 25, I f i nd i ta nece ssary p artof the an al ysi s. ¶ 6 3 . R u le 2 5 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt:

(1) I f a party dies and t he cl ai m i s no tthereby ext i ng uis hed , th e c o u rt s hal l , upon m ot i on, or ders ubs t i tut i on of the pr operpart i es . T he mot i on f or s ubs t i tut i on m ay be m ade by a ny pa r ty orby the s ucce s s or s orr epr es ent at i ves of the dec eas ed party and, t ogetherw i th the not i ce of he ar i ng, s hal l be s erved on the part i es as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 5 and upon per s ons notpar t i es i n t he manner pr ovi ded i n R ul e 4 fort he se r vi ce of summ ons . T he act i on shal l be di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce a s t o the dec eas ed party i f the mot i on f

ors ubs t i tut i on i s not m ade w i thi n ni nety days af t erthe dea th i s s ugges t ed upon t he r ecor d by s ervi ce of a s t at ementof

the f actof the dea th as her ei n pr ovi ded f orthe s ervi ce of

the m ot i on.

### 24 ( 2) I n t he eventof the death of one orm or e of the pl ai nt i f

f s orof one or m or e of t he def endant s i n an ac t i on i n w hich t he r i ghts oughtt o be enf or ced survi ves on l y to the survi ving p l ai nti ff o r only ag ai nstthe survi ving defend ants , the ac t i on does notabat e. T he death shal l be sugges t ed upon the r ecor d and the act i on shal l proceed i n favor of or agai nstthe survi ving part i es. M is s . R . C iv . P . 2 5 (a ). ¶ 6 4 . T h e c o m m e n t to R u le 2 5 fu rth e r sta tes : “ R ul e 25 pr es uppos es thats ubs t i t ut i on is f or
s om eone who w as alr eady a par t y to a pendi ng act i on; s ubs t i t ut i on is notpos s i bl e i f one w ho
w as nam ed as a par t

y i n f act di ed bef or e the com m ence m ent

of the act i on. See Mi

z ukam iv. B uras , 4 1 9 F.2 d

1 3 1 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 6 9

). ” M iss. R . C iv. P. 25 , cm t. (em p h asis o ri g inal). H ow ever, the “n ot possi ble” l ang uag e i s m i sl eading, as Miz u k a mim er el y s ai d R ul e 25 i s not avai l abl e i n s uch a s i tuat i on. I n Miz u k a mi , w hi ch w as a ca s e f r om the U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tf or the East ern D i s tr i ctof

L oui s i ana, the Fi f

th C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s s ai d: “H ow ever , as t he d is tr ic t c o u rt n o te d , the r ul e cont empl at es s ubs t i tuti on fors om eone w ho had bee n m ade a p arty b e fo re h is d ea th. I tis notavai labl e t o the appe l l ant s i n the pr es entcas e s i nce Bura s pr edec eas ed the f

i l i ng of the ac t i on. ” Id . a t 1 3 2 0 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Mi z u k a mirel i es on Chorney v. Cal

lahan , 135 F. Supp. 35 ( D . M as s . 1955). B oth Miz u k a miand Chorney i nvol ved att empt s t o s ubs t i tut e the hei r s of a de f endantunde rFede r al Rul e 25. T he i ssue reg ard ing sub sti tuti o n of th e h eir o f a plaintif f w as later ad d resse d b y the U n it ed S tat es C o u rt
o f A p p e a ls fo r th e T e n th C irc u it. ¶65. I n E s

pos ito v. U

nited States , 368 F. 3d 1271 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , a dece dent w as named
as a pl ai nt i f

f i n a w r ongf

ul
- death act i on, w hi ch w as di s m i s s ed by the K ans as di s tr i ctc our tf or la c k o f s u b

je c t- m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . Id . a t1272. T he T enth Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the di s tr i ctcour t , fi ndi ng subs t i tut i on of the dece dent ’ s w i f e pr operunderthe r eal
- part y- i n-

### 25

in te re s t p ro v is io n o f F e d e ra l R u le 1 7 . E sp o sito , 368 F. 3d at1277- 78; Fed. R . C i v. P. 17. Speci f i cal l y, the C our ts ai d: Mizuk am iv. B uras , 41 9 F . 2d 13 19 (5th C i r. 19 69 ) ( per curi am ), al so fre q u e n tly c ited in th is c o n tex t, i s n o t o n p o in t he re eith e r. T h a t ca se d e a lt w ith an att empt t o s ubs t i tut e the hei r s of a d e fen da n t pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 25, rathe r th an the h eirs of a p lai n ti ff un d er R u le 17 (a). T h e sa m e is true o f Moul v. P ace , 261 F. Supp. 616 ( D . M d. 1966)
. W e fi nd n one of thes e ca s es per s uas i ve on the i s s ue conf r ont i ng us her e. W e do , ho w e ve r , f

i nd s up po r ti n the f

e de r a l rul e s f

orpe r m i t t i ng su b stitu tio n n o tw ith sta n d in g M r. E sp o sito ’s la c k o f c a p a c ity a t th e tim e th e su it w as f i l ed. A s the di s tr i ctc our tpoi nt ed out , nothi ng i n R ul e 17( a) r equi r es that the o rigina l plainti ff ha v e c ap ac ity to su e. T h e fa ct i s, R u le 17 (a) d o es m o re than mer el y pr ovi de a r el at i on back pr i nci pl e. I tpr ovi des thats ubs t i tut i on “s hal l have the sa m e e

ffec t a s if

the ac t i on had bee n comm ence d i n the name of the r eal party i n i nt er es t . Fed. R . C i v. P. 17( a) ( emphasi s added)
. R ul e 17( a) i s de s i gned t o pr eventf

or f ei tur es , a nd a s s uch mustbe gi ven br oad appl i cat i on. See Fed. R . C i v. P . 17 advi s ory com m i t t ee’ s not es (1996 A m endment ) ( s t at i ng R ul e 17( a) i s “i nt ended t o i ns ur e aga i ns tfor f ei tur e and i nj us t i ce” by codi f yi ng “i n br oad t erm s ” pr i orl aw pe r m i t t i ng s ubs t i tut i on notw i ths t andi ng runni ng of l i m i t at i ons s t atut e)
. W e conc l ude thatM r . E s pos i t o’ s l ack of cap aci ty atthe tim e th e su it w a s file d d o e s n o t p re v e n t th e su b s titu tio n f ro m re latin g b a c k to the d ate the su itw as fil ed u n d er R u le 17 (a). E sp o sito , 3 6 8 F . 3 d at 12 7 7 -78 (em p h asis o ri g inal). ¶6 6 . In fin d in g th e su b sti tuti o n o f th e w if e fo r th e d ec ed en t- p lai n ti ff pro p er u n d er R u le 17( a) , the courtconsi der ed “w hethert he pl ai nt i f f engaged i n del i ber at e t act i cal m aneuve r i ng ( i
. e . w he the rhi s mi s t a ke w a s “ ho ne s t ” ) , a nd on w he the rthe de f e nd a ntw a s pr ej udi ced t her eby. ” Id . a t12 76 . The c ou r tf ou nd tha tf

i l i ng the a c t i on i n the na me of the de c e a s ed p la in tif f w a s a n h o n e s t, u n d e rs ta n d a b le m is ta k e . Id . T he cou rtconcluded th at “M r. E s pos i t o’ s l ack of

capa ci ty att he t i m e the s ui tw as fi l ed does notpr eventthe s ubs t i tut i on f r om
r el at i ng back t o the dat e the s ui tw as f i l ed underR ul e 17( a)
. ” Id . at1278. I n the i ns t antcas e,

### 26

ther e i s no evi dence t hatt he pl ai nt i f f engage d i n “del i ber at e t act i cal m aneuve r i ng” by f i l i ng th e a c tio n in th e n a m e o f L o n n ie P ittm a n o r t h a t T ra n e w a s p re ju d ic e d th e re b y . ¶6 7 . M iss iss ip p i’s re al-pa rty -i n -i n terest rule co n tai n s th e sa m e lan g u a g e d isc u ss e d in E sp o sito . R ule 17(a) of the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re s t at es:

E v e ry a c tio n sh a ll b e p ro se c u ted in th e n a m e o f th e re a l p a rty in in ter e st. A n ex e c u to r, ad m in istra to r, gu a rd ian , b a ilee , tru ste e , a p a rty w ith w h o m o r in w h o se n a m e a c o n tra c t h a s b e e n m a d e fo r th e b e n e fit o f a n o th e r, o r a p a rty author i zed by s t atut e may sue i n hi s r epr es ent at i ve capaci ty w i thoutj oi ni ng w i th hi m the party f

orw hos e bene f

i tthe ac t i on i s br ought
. N o act i on s hal l be d ism iss e d o n th e g ro u n d tha t itis n o t p ro se c u ted in th e n a m e o f th e re a l p a rty i n i nt er es tunt i l a r easona ble t i m e has been a l l ow ed af t erobj ect i on f

or r at i f i cat i on of

comm ence m entof

the ac t i on by, orj oi nderors ubs t i tut i on of , the r eal party i n i nt er es t ; and s uch r at i f i cat i on, j oi nderors ubs t i tut i on s hal l have the sa m e e ffe c t a s if th e a c tio n h a d b e e n c o m m e n c e d in th e n a m e o f th e re a l p a rty in in ter e st. M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 7 (a ). T h e c o m m e n t to R u le 1 7 a lso sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt:

T h e p ro v isio n th a t n o a c tio n sh a ll b e d ism iss e d o n th e g ro u n d

th a t it is n o tp r o s e c u t e d

i n th e n a me o

f th e r e a lp a r t

y i n i n t e r e s tu n t i la r e a s o n a b l e t i me ha s been a l l ow ed, after the o bject i on ha s been ra ised, f or rat i f i cati on , j oinder, ors ubs t i t ut i on, is added s i m pl y i n the i nt er es t

s of j us t i ce . M iss. R . C iv. P. 17 , cm t. (em p h asis o ri g inal). ¶ 6 8 . T ra n e a ss e rts in th e A p p e llan t’s B rie f th a t: W h e re th e lim its o f su b stitu tio n h a v e b e e n sp e c ifica lly d e fin e d , a s h e re w ith reg ard to R u le 2 5 (a)(1), i t w o u ld b e co m p let ely an o m alou s to h o ld, as P ittm an ’s couns el s ugges t ed, thatthe gener al i zed pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 17 coul d s om ehow trum p oroverr i de the s peci f i c prohi bi t i on r ecogni zed by Rul e 25( a) ( 1)
. T he m os tbas i c pr i nci pl e r egar di ng t he i nt erpr et at i on of s t atut es and rul es i s thatthe m or e s peci f

i c rul e governs the more gener al pr ovi s i on. Y etT r ane a l so ad m i t s repe at edl y thatR ul e 25( a) i s notappl i cabl e i n a s i tuat i on w her e the party pr edec eas ed the f

i l i ng of the ac t i on. T r ane i s corr ectthatR ul e 25( a) i s notappl i cabl e. See Miz u k a mi , 419 F. 2d 1319. H ow ever , I di s agr ee w i th T r ane’ s contr adi ct ory ar gum entand

### 27

the maj or i ty’ s f

i ndi ng thatR ul e 17 i s no tappl i cabl e and c oul d notauthor i ze a pr oper s ubs t i tut i on. T he l anguage i n E sp o sito , Rul e 17( a) , a nd the acc om panyi ng c om m ent , as s et outabove, cl ear l y al l ow t he s ubs t i tut i on of the r eal party i n i nter estw here a party has pr edec eas ed the f

i l i ng. ¶6 9 . T h e m ajority d isag ree s w ith the h o lding o f E sp o sito and f i nds that s ubs t i tut i on i s not pr operunderR ul e 17. I n doi ng s o, the maj or i ty r el i es on var i ous ca s es f r om other j ur i s di ct i ons f

orthe pr opos i t i on thatan ac t i on f i l ed i n the nam e of

a dec eas ed per s on or
n o n ex ist en t entity is a n u ll ity . H o w ev er, m o st of the c ase s cit ed b y the m ajority are nonbi ndi ng author i ty deci ded pr i ort o E sp o sito , and al l ar e ea s i l y di s t i ngui s hed. ¶70 . T he m aj ori ty cit es Hum phr e y s v. I r v ine , 1 4 M iss. 2 0 5 , 2 0 5 (M iss. E rr. & A p p . 1 8 4 6 ), fo r t h e fo llo w in g : “ In its e a rl y d a y s , th is C o u rt h e ld th a t a d e a d p e rs o n c a n n o t i n s titu te a s u it.” ( M aj
. O p. at¶ 16)
. H ow ever , i n Hum phre ys , w h ich w a s d e c id e d p rio r to th e a p p lic a b le
cas el aw and rul e di s cus s ed her ei n, the tr i al courtexcl uded evi dence thatthe pl ai nt i f f w as d e c e a s e d a t th e tim e o f t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e s u it. Hum phre ys , 14 M i s s . at205. A f t er a j ury ver di ctand j udgm enti n f avorof the dec eas ed pl ai nt i f

f , the def endant s appea l ed. T he H ig h C o u rt o f E rro rs a n d A p p e a ls o f M iss iss ip p i h e ld th a t: A j udgm ent

fo r o r a g a in st a d e a d m a n is us ual l y a n u ll ity . O u r sta tu te d ir ec ts thatthe dea th of

t he nom i nal pl ai nt i f

f duri ng t he pendenc y of the s ui t , s hal l not c a u se it s a b a tem e n t. . . . T h is c o n stitu tes p e rh a p s th e o n ly e x c e p tio n . B u t th is cannotbe const rued t o author i ze the comm ence m entof a s ui t , i n the name of a p e rso n n o lo n g e r in e x iste n c e . It m a tters n o t a t w h a t tim e th e fa c t o f th e d e a th of a party i s m ade know n t o the court ; nor i n w hat f or m . T he obj ect i on r i s es a b o v e th e m e re tec h n ica l ru les o f p lea d in g , a n d g o e s to th e rig h t o f th e c o u rt to p r o c e e d
. I ts t o p s th e c a u s e a twh a t e v e rs t a g e i tma y b e , wh e n e v e rma d e k n o wn to th e c o u rt.

### 28

T he exc l us i on of

the t es t i m ony w as the r ef or e err oneous . I f

the f acti s m ade out t o the s at i s f

act i on of the court , the ef

f ectm us tbe an a batementof the s ui t , as i tw i l l s how i tw as w r ongl y br oughtati t s i ncept i on. I d . a t 2 0 5 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Hum phre ys i nv olved t he ex cl usi on of evi den ce i n a case in v o lv in g a sin g le p la in tif f. F u rt h e r, Hum

phre ys di d noti nvol ve the s ubs t i tut i on oratt empt ed
s ubs t i tut i on o f

a r e a l p a r ty i n i nt e r e s t , b utr a the ri nv ol ve d the e xc l us i on d ur i ng tr i al of evi dence thatthe pl ai nt i ff w as de ad atthe t i m e the s ui tw as f i l ed. M or eover , t o r ei t er at e, Hum phre ys s poke of

a j udgm entf

or oragai ns ta dea d per s on us ual l y bei ng a nul l i ty. T hat is n o t th e c a s e h e re . T h e re fo re , Hum phre ys , w hi ch w as deci ded pr i ort o E spos ito and the adopt i on of

R ul e 17, i s notappl i cabl e. ¶71 . T he m aj ori ty then ci t es C ollins v. G e ne r al Ele c tr i c Com

pa ny , 123 So. 2d 609, 613 (M i ss. 1 96 0), as r ecogni zi ng but“choos i ng nott o appl y” the “ge ner al rul e” f ound i n t he f ol l ow i ng: T he appe l l ant s r el y upon t he rul e thati n every act i on ther e mustbe a r eal pl ai nt i f f w ho i s a per s on i n l aw and w ho i s pos sess ed of a l egal ent i ty and capa ci ty t o s ue. W e r ecogni ze thi s rul e. I n 67 C . J . S. Par t i es § 4, p. 896, appea r s the f

ol l ow i ng:

“ In e v e ry a c tio n th e re m u st b e a re a l p lain tiff w h o is a p e rso n in law a n d is pos s es s ed of

a l egal ent i ty orexi s t ence as a natur al , art i f i ci al , orquas i
- art i f

i ci al person, and a sui tbroug ht i n the nam e of that w hich i s not a l egal ent i ty is a m e re n u llity .” W e thi nk, how ever , thatthe f act s of thi s cas e do notw arr antthe appl i cat i on of

the af or es ai d rul e. Collins , 123 So. 2d at833. ( M aj
. O p. at¶ 17)
. The m aj or i ty acknow l edges thatther e ar e t i m es th a t th e “ g e n e ra l ru le ” d o e s n o t a p p ly . H o w e v e r, Collins w as deci ded pr i ort o E sp o sito and i s notappl i cabl e.

### 29

¶72. I n Il

lin ois Cen tral

R ail roadCompa ny v. B rou ssard , 19 So. 3d 821 ( M i s s . 2009) , t he tr i a l c o u r td i s mi s s e d t h e a c t i o n a f t e rb e i n g n o t i f

i e d th a tth e e mp l o y e e wa s d e c e a s e d a tth e t i me o f f ilin g , b u t d e n ie d th e ra ilr o a d ’s re q u e s t f o r s a n c tio n s a g a in s t c o u n s e l f o r B ro u s s a rd
. Id . at 823 T he r ai l r oad appea l ed t he deni al of s anct i ons . T hi s C our taf f i r m ed, f i ndi ng thatthe tr i al
c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g a n a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d e x p e n s e s . Id . at 824. T hi s cas e i s notappl i cabl e. ¶73 . T he m aj ori ty cit es A del s ber gerv. U nited States , 5 8 F ed
. C l. 6 1 6 , 6 1 7 (F ed
. C l. 2 0 0 3 ), f orthe pr opos i t i on t hatan “a ct i on br oughti n the name of a decea s ed i ndi vi dual [ w as ] decl ar ed nul l
. ” A del

s ber geri s a Fai rL aborSt andar ds A ctcas e f r om the U ni t ed St at es C our tof Feder al C la im s , w h ic h h a s s e p a ra te ru le s . F u rt h e r, A del s ber ger , w hi ch r el i es on the Miz u k a mi deci s i on di s cus s ed pr evi ous l y her ei n, w as deci ded pr i ort o E sp o sito . M or eover , t he A del s ber ger courtf

ound that , underthe appl i cabl e K ans as l aw , the w i dow o f the dec eas ed la c k e d th e re p re s e n ta tiv e c a p a c ity to s u e o n b e h a lf o f h e r h u s b a n d ’s e s ta te . Id . at619. T her ef or e, thi s cas e i s notappl i cabl e. ¶74 . T he m aj ori ty n ext ci t es Banaku s v. U ni ted A ir cr af

t C or p. , 290 F. Supp. 259, 260 ( S. D . N . Y . 1968) , f

orthe pr opos i t i on that“per s onal i nj ury s ui tbr oughti n the name of dece as ed per s on [ w as ] tr eat ed as a nul l i ty. ” H ow ever , the m aj or i ty f ai l s t o acknow l edge that Banaku s , a di ver s i ty s ui tf orper sonal i nj ur i es , w as deci ded pr i ort o and s ubs equent l y w as di s t i ngui s hed by E sp o sito . Speci f i cal l y, the E s

pos ito courts ai d: B anakus v. U

nited A ir cr af

t Cor p. , 290 F. Supp. 259 ( S. D . N . Y . 1968) , i s the ca se m o st o fte n cit ed for the “n u ll ity ” the o ry. In tha t case , the d istri ct co u rt deni ed mot i ons by the dec edent ’ s admi ni s tr atr i x ( 1) t o s ubs t i tut e her s el f f orthe dece denti n hi s s ui tf

orper s onal i nj ur i es and ( 2) t o add a cl ai m f orw r ongf

ul d e a th
. Id . at260. T he courtnot ed thatbeca us e the deced ent had di ed thi r ty-

### 30

f i ve mi nut es bef

or e hi s a t t orney f

i l ed hi s act i on s eeki ng damages f orper s onal in ju ry , h is s u it w a s a n u llity
. Id . I tther ef or e cou l d no tbe r evi ved by s ubs t i tut i ng part i es and amendi ng t he compl ai ntt o add a c l ai m f orw r ongf

ul d e a th
. Id . Banaku s i nvol ved a pa r t i cul arf actual s i tuat i on thati s notpr es enther e. T he dece dent ’ s or i gi nal compl ai nti n Banaku s w a s fo r p e rso n a l in ju ry o n ly a n d d id n o t in c lu d e a ca u se o f ac tio n fo r w ro n g fu l de a th . T h e c o u rt w a s n o t fa c e d w ith p o ssible forfeitu re of a w ron g ful de ath c lai m ; itspe cifi ca ll y st ated th at its hol di ng w as w i thoutpr ej ud i ce t o the r i ghtof the admi ni s tr atr i x t o i ns t i tut e a s e p a ra te a c tio n fo r w ro n g fu l d e a th
. Id . T h e e ssen ti al po int of Banaku s i s that the admi ni s tr atr i x s houl d nothave a t t empt ed t o revi ve an e xpi r ed l aw s ui tf or p e rso n a l in

ju rie s b y in

jec tin g a n e w w ro n g fu l d e a th c laim ; in ste a d , sh e sh o u ld have f i l ed hercl ai m as a s epar at e ac t i on. B eca us e Banaku s r el i ed hea vi l y on the admi ni s tr atr i x’ s att empt t o obt ai n amendm entas w el l as s ubs t i tut i on, and di d nota ddr es s the f

or f ei tur e avoi dance pr i nci pl es of R ul e 17( a) , w e do notf

i nd i tper s uas i ve on the s ubs t i tut i on i s s ue i n thi s cas e. E sp o sito , 368 F. 3d 1271 at1277. T he i nst ant case di d noti nvol ve an a t t empt t o r evi ve an e x p ire d p erso n al-i n

jury ac ti o n b y injecti n g a w ron g ful-de ath c lai m . A s stated p rev iou sly h e re in , th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t in c lu d e d a c la im fo r w ro n g fu l d e a th . T h e re fo re , Banaku s i s not appl i cabl e. ¶75. T he m aj ori t y cit es B la c k C a ny o n C itiz e n s C o a litio n , I n c . v. B o a rdo

f Co u n ty Co m m iss io n e rs o

f Mo n tro se Co u n ty , 80 P. 3d 932, 933- 35 ( C ol o. A pp . 2003) , f ort he pr oposi t i on tha t“s ui tf

i l ed i n the name of

a nonexi s t entcorpor at i on [ w as ] deemed voi d ab i ni t i o. ” I n B lack Canyon , w hi ch w as deci ded pr i or t o E sp o sito , the C ol or ado C our tof A p p e a ls h e ld th a t a n o n e x ist e n t c o rp o ra tio n lac k e d c a p a c ity to file a c o m p lain t, an d th a t it s a ttem p t to c u re th e d e fe c t af ter th e e x p ira tio n o f a th irty -d a y p e rio d sp e c ified b y R u le 1 0 6 ( a )( 4 ) o f t h e C o lo ra d o R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re fa ile d
. B lack Canyon , 8 0 P. 3d a t935. T h e re fo re , B lack Canyon is d iss im ilar f a c tu a lly a n d in v o lv e s th e a p p lica tio n o f a sp e c ific C ol or ado rul e notati s s ue her e. T he C olor ado courtacknow l edged thatcourt s appl yi ng

### 31

C o lorad o R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 7 h ad n o t yet ad d resse d the q u esti o n o f “w h ethe r a nonexi s t entper s on orent i t y can have ei therthe r equi s i t e capaci ty ori nt er es tt o br i ng an act i on. ” B lack Canyon , 80 P. 3d at934-35. T he cour tsai d t hati tfound no c om pel l i ng r eas on t o r eac h a r es ul tcontr ary t o Rul e 25 and thati tw as “per s uaded by the combi nat i on of § 7- 122- 1 0 3 , B ow ers B uilding [ v. A ltura G las s Co. , 694 P. 2d 875 ( C ol o. A pp. 1984) ] , and the j ur i s prudence appl yi ng Fed. R . C i v. P. 25, thatan ac t i on f i l ed by a none xi s t entper s on or ent i ty i s a nul l i ty. ” A s s t at ed her ei n, the appl i cat i on of R ul e 17 s ubs equent l y w as addr es s ed i n E sp o sito . F u rth e r, th e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls la ter d isa g re e d w ith a n d d e c lin e d to f o l l o w B lack Canyon . See A s hton P r oper ties, L T D v. O ver ton , 107 P. 3d 1014, 1017 ( C ol o. 2004) , and Curr ie rv. Sut he r land , 2 1 5 P .3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 0 -6 1 (C o lo . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e re fo re , B lack Canyon i s notappl i cabl e. ¶76 . T he m aj ori ty then ci t es G regory v. D i Cen zo , 71 3 A . 2d 772, 775 ( R . I . 1998) , f ort he p ro p o s itio n th a t a “ c o m p la in t c o m m e n c e d in d e c e a se d p e rs o n ’s n a m e [w a s ] d e e m e d a n u llity .” H ow ever , i n G regory , w hi ch w as deci ded pr i ort o E sp o sito , the courtfound thatt he appr opr i at e pr ocedur e t o be ut i l i zed i n ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a c om pl ai nti s br oughti n t he name of a dec eas ed per s on w as f ound i n a R hode I s l and s t atut e, r atherthan i n R ul e 17 or25. T h e c a s e b e fo re u s in v o lv e s n o s u c h s ta tu te . T h e re fo re , G regory i s notappl i cabl e. ¶77 . T he m aj ori ty nex tci t es Matthe ws v. Cle v e land , 2 8 4 S . E . 2 d 6 3 4 , 6 3 5 -36 (G a. 19 8 1 ), f orthe pr opos i t i on t hata “de cea s ed per s on cannotcomm ence an ac t i on. ” Ma tth e ws i s a G e o rg ia C o u rt o f A p p e a ls g a rn ish m e n t c a se in terp re tin g th e a p p lica tio n o f a G e o rg ia s tatu te and w as deci ded bef

or e E sp o sito . T her ef

or e, thi s cas e i s notappl i cabl e.

### 32

¶78 . T he m aj ori ty cit es L eve r ing v. R i vers ide Met hodis t Hos pital , 2 O hi o App. 3d157, 159, 441 N . E . 2d 290, 291 ( O hi o A pp. 1981), fort he pr opos i t i on thata “c om pl ai nt[ w as ] decl ar ed a nul l i ty w her e [ the] pl ai nt i f f di ed pr i ort o i t s f

i l i ng. ” Lev e r ing , w h ich w a s d e c id e d p rio r to E sp o sito , i nvol ved O hi o cour trul es re gar di ng t he comm ence m entof an ac t i on, amendm ent
o f p lea d in g s a n d th e O h io v e rsio n o f R u le 2 5 , b u t d id n o t ad d re ss th e a p p lica tio n o f a n y ru le
s im ila r t o R u le 1 7 re g a rd in g th e s u b s titu tio n o f a r e a l p a rt y in in te re s t. T h e re fo re , Lev e r ing i s notappl i cabl e. ¶79. T he maj or i ty al s o t akes i s s ue w i th the hol di ng i n E sp o sito , w h ich is f a c tu a lly o n p o in t, by at t empt i ng t o sepa r at e “c apac i ty t o s ue” a nd “l egal exi s t ence ” of a party i n s uch a manner
as t o s om ehow dis t i ng uis h E sp o sito . (M a j. O p . at ¶ 2 5 ). In d o in g so , the m a jo rity
m i sapprehen ds E sp o sito , R u le 1 7 , R u le 9 , an d v a rio u s lo w e r c o u rt c a se s d e c id e d p rio r to E sp o sito . T h e m a

jo rity sta tes : “E sp o sito corr ect l y not es thatnothi ng i n Rul e 17( a) r equi r es th a t th e o ri g in a l p la in tif f h a v e th e c a p a c ity to s u e . Id . at1277. Y etcapac i ty i s notr eal l y t he i s s ue i n a ca s e l i ke the one be f or e us . ” ( M aj
. O p. at¶ 25). W hi l e t he maj or i ty i s corr ectthat
s uch a s t at ementi s m ade i n E s pos ito r egar di ng F ederal R ule of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 17, t he E sp o sito co u rtalso sa id th at i ssu es o f ca p ac ity are d eterm ined b y the law o f th e ind ividu al’s d o m ic ile
. E sp o sito , 368 F. 3d at1273. T he very t i t l e of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s R ul e 17 i s “Part i es Pl ai nt i f f and D ef endant ; C apac i ty. ” M i s s . R . C i v. P . 17. Fur ther , the comm entt o M i s s i s s i ppi R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 7 s tate s: “ R ul e 17 pr es cr i bes the gene r alr equi r em ent s thatm us tbe
s at is f i ed r egar di ng the pl ai nt i f f’s i nt er es ti n the s ubj ect m at t erof

the pr ocee di ng and each l i t igant ’s capaci t

y ei thert o s ue orbe s ued .” M is s . R . C iv . P . 1 7 c m t. ( e m p h a s is o ri g in a l)
.

### 33

¶80. M or eover , M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Procedu re 9(a) t reat s capa ci ty t o s ue and l egal exi s t ence i nt er change abl y. Speci f i cal l y, R ul e 9( a) s t at es : “The capa ci ty i n w hi ch one s ues or i s s ue d mus tbe s t a t e d i n o ne ’ s i ni t i a l pl e a di ng . ” The c omm e ntt o Rul e 9 s t a t e s , i n r e l e va nt p a rt: Ru l e 9 (

a ) is th e s a me a s was r e q u i r e d by pr i o rMis s is s i

p p ipr o c e d u r e . S e e V. G r i f f i th, Mis s is s i

ppiC hancer

y Pract i ce, § 164 (

2d ed. 1950)
. A par t

y des i r i ng to ra ise a n iss u e a s to th e leg a l ex iste n c e , c a p a c ity, o r a u th o rity o

f a p a rty w ill b e r e q u ir e d

to d o s o b

y s p e c ific n eg a tiv e a v e r m e n t. M iss. R . C iv. P. 9 c m t. (em p h asis o ri g inal). ¶81 . T he m aj ori ty, w hich st at es that capaci ty is no tthe is sue i n thi s case, ci t es G lick ste in
v . Sun Ba n k

/ Mia mi , N. A. , 9 22 F. 2d 6 66 , 6 70 ( 11 th Ci r c . 1 99 1) , f ora n e xp l a na t i on t hat

“ ‘c a p a c ity to s u e ’ r e la te s to a p a r ty ’s ri g h t to litig a te .” (M a j. O p . a t ¶ 2 5 ). G lick ste in i nvol ved an a ct i on i n a n e s t at e ca s e w her e G l i cks t ei n had notyetbeen appoi nt ed the per s onal
r epr es ent at i ve of

the es t at e atthe t i m e of the f i l i ng. T he courti n G lick ste in compar ed
s t andi ng t o capa ci ty t o s ue, f i ndi ng that“[ i ] ti s cl earthatthe Li l l y G l i cks t ei n es t at e has

‘ s t andi ng’ t o br i ng thi s act i on. ” Id . 6 70 . T he co urtfur ther sai d thatthe “q uest i on i n thi s case i s w hetherH ow ar d G l i cks t ei n [ w ho had notyetbeen appoi nt ed the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the es t at e atthe t i m e the s ui tw as fi l ed] i s abl e t o br i ng thi s cas e on beha l f of the es t at e. T hi s i s nota ques t i on of s t andi ng; rat her, thi s i s s ue i nvol ves the ques t i on of w hether G li ck stei n h as th e ca p ac ity t o bring this acti o n o n b eh alf of the estate.” N o t on ly d id the co u rt

### Glick stein was abrogat ed by Sa xto n v. A CF

Ind ustries, In c., 25 4 F .3d95 9 (1 1th 3 

### Cir . 2001) , whi ch f

ound that Fe deralRuleof Ci vilProc edur e 15( c) (1) al lows fe deral c ourt s s i tt i ngi n di ve r s i ty t o a pp ly re l at i on - ba c k r

ul e s of s t at e l aw. 34 f i nd thatG l i cks t ei n had ca paci ty, buti thel d thatG l i cks t ei n’ s appoi nt m entas r epr es ent at i ve
w o u ld re la te b a c k to th e tim e a t w h ic h th e s u it w a s fi le d
. Id . at668. 3 ¶82. T he maj or i ty al s o ci t es the pr e- E sp o sito ca se o f I ow a C oal

Mining Co. , I

nc. v. Monroe Co u n ty , 555 N . W . 2d 418, 428 ( I ow a 1996) , f ordi s t i ngui s hi ng t he conce pt s of c apac i ty t o s ue a n d leg al ex ist en ce . T h e m ajority th en say s, “O u r con ce rn, r athe r, i s a disti n ct bu t clo se ly
re la te d c o n c e p t: le g a l e x is te n c e . See I ow a Coal , 5 5 5 N .W .2 d a t 4 2 8 (n o tin g th a t ca p a c ity to
s ue i s di st i nct but cl osel y al l i ed t o l egal exi s t ence ) ( quot i ng 59 A m . J ur . 2d P ar t i es §24, at 4 1 0 ).” (M a

j. O p . a t ¶ 2 5 ). H o w e v e r, I ow a Coal , w hi ch i s a ca s e i nvol vi ng a zoni ng or di nance f r om the I ow a Supr eme C our t , does notaddr es s the l egal exi s t ence of a party, butr ather d isc u ss e s th e leg a l ex iste n c e o f a c a u se o f ac tio n . Id . a t 4 2 8 . A ls o , I ow a Coal

i nvol ved
s ta n d in g to b ri n g s u it, n o t th e s u b s titu tio n o f a re a l p a rt y in in te re s t. Id . I n di s cus s i ng w hether I ow a C oal had capaci ty t o s ue, the courts ai d:

C apac i ty t o s ue i s s een a s di s t i nctfr om , al though cl os el y al l i ed t o, l egal exi s t ence , orthe qual i ty of bei ng a person i n l aw , and the pos s es s i on of the re q u isite in ter e st to s u p p o rt a n a c tio n , o r “ sta n d in g ,” to s u e . C a p a c ity re late s to a party' s per s onal orof f i ci al r i ghtt o l i t i gat e the i s s ues pr es ent ed by the p lead ing s. W an t of ca p ac ity to su e h as re feren ce , n o t t o the e x isten ce o f a pl ai nt i f f , butt o l egal di s abi l i ty, such as i nf ancy, m ent al i ncompet ence , and the lik e , w h ich d e p riv e s a p a rty o f th e rig h t to c o m e in to c o u rt. L a c k o f c a p a c ity m e re ly d e p ri v e s a p a r ty o f t h e ri g h t to c o m e in to c o u rt . I tdoes notgo t o the exis t ence of

a caus e of

act i on . Id . at 42 8 (em p h asis o ri g inal). ¶83. T he courtf

ur thers ai d:

### 35 T h e C o u n ty ' s c h a llen g e is n o t o n e o f lac k o f ca p a c ity to su e . T h e C o u n ty is n o t a ss e rtin g th a t Io w a C o a l h a d a leg a l d isa b ili ty d e p riv in g it o f th e rig h t to come i nt o court . I ow a C oal i s a l egal e nt i ty a nd os t ens i bl y ha d r i ght s underthe l eas es and amendm ent s as an as s i gnee, r i ght s i tcl ai m s w er e al l egedl y af f ect ed by the C ou nty' s act i on s. A cause o f act i on , on the o ther han d, i s defi ned by ou r courtas th e a c t o n the p a rt o f th e d e fe n d a n t w h ich g iv e s th e p lain tiff h is “ c a u se o f c o m p lain t.” T h a t is, the re m u st b e [a] leg a l rig h t in [ the] pl ai nt i f

f , a corr es pondi ng duty on t he par tof the def endant a n d a n att en d an t brea ch o f th at du ty w ith resu lt an t harm to p la in tif f. . . . G iltn er v. S tark , 252 N . W . 2d 743, 745 ( I ow a 1977) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. O f the thr ee c oncept s – s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, capac i ty t o s ue, and ca us e of act i on

– th e c o n c e p t co n c e rn in g c a u se o f a c tio n is th e o n ly o n e th a t co u ld c o n c e iv a b ly f i tthe f act s her e. T he C ounty i s re al l y ar gui ng t hatI ow a C oal had no ca us e of act i on. T he C ounty' s ar gum enti s thatI ow a C oal had no r i ghtt o m i ne and l andf i l l underthe lea se s w h e n d a m a g e s a ro se a n d th e se p ro c e e d in g s w e re in stitu ted . T h e rig h t to m i ne and l andf

i l l nece s s ar i l y f

or m s the bas i s f

ora ny s ui tI ow a C oal may have had aga i ns tthe C ount y. I ow a Coal , 555 N . W . 2d at429. ¶84. Forthes e r eas ons , thi s cas e i s notappl i cabl e. ¶85 . T h e m aj ori ty ag ai n cit es A del s ber ger , 5 8 F ed
. C l. at 6 1 7 , for the p rop o sitio n th a t a

“ le g a l e x is te n c e is a b a s ic th re s h o ld ; it s e rv e s a s a p re re q u is ite to h a v in g c a p a c ity to s u e .” (M a j. O p . a t ¶ 2 5 ). A del

s ber gerpr evi ous l y has been di s cus s ed her ei n. ¶86. T he m aj or i ty then deci des t hat , r atherthan the l egal exi s t ence of the pl ai nt i f

f , i
. e. , “that the i ndi vi dual s ui ng i s al i ve, ” the i s s ue i s actual l y the l egal exi s t ence of the act i on. ( M aj
. O p. at¶¶ 25- 26) ( emphasi s or i gi nal )
. T he maj or i t y st at es t hatR ul e 17( a) notonl y pr es uppos es

“ th a t th e p lain tiff fil in g su it leg a lly ex ists” b u t also “ta k e s fo r g ra n ted o r p re su m e s th a t a v a lid

### 36

‘act i on ’ exi st s. ” (M aj
. O p. at¶ 26). T he m aj ori ty cit es Matthe ws v. Cle v e land , 284 S. E . 2d 63 4, 63 5- 36 ( G a . 19 81 ) , a nd G reg ory v. D i Cen zo , 713 A . 2d 772, 773 ( R . I . 1998) , f ort he p rop o sit ion that “n o ‘ac ti o n ’ ex ist s w h ere the o ri g inal c o m p lai n t i s fil ed b y a d ea d p erso n . ’” (M a j. O p . a t ¶ 2 6 ). A s s ta te d p re v io u s ly h e re in , Ma tth e ws is a G e o rg ia C o u rt o f A p p e a ls g arn ishm e n t c ase interpre ti n g the a p p li ca ti o n o f a G eo rgia statute a n d w as d ec ided b efo re E sp o sito . T her ef

or e, thi s cas e i s no tappl i cabl e. H ow ever , i ti s w or th m ent i oni ng that Matt h ew s di s cus s es the s ubs t i tut i on of a pl ai nt i f

f “havi ng capa ci ty t o s ue” f ora pl ai nt i f

f w ho is d e a d
. Id . a t 6 3 6 . T h e m a jo ri ty o f t h is C o u rt s a y s c a p a c ity to s u e is n o t th e is s u e . G regory has been di s t i ngui s hed pr evi ous l y her ei n. H ow ever , beca us e the maj or i ty m i s appr ehends G regory a s econd t i m e, I w i l l br i ef l y r eaddr es s thi s case. T he maj or i ty’ s s ugges t i on that G r egor y h o lds tha t “n o ‘acti o n ’ exists w h ere th e o ri g inal co m p lai n t is fi led b y a d ea d p erso n ’” i s er r oneous . ( M aj
. O p. at¶ 26). T he C our ti n G regory fo u n d th a t R u le 2 5 w a s n o t ap p lica b le and that“a va l i d act i on di d notcomm ence w i thi n one yea rof the appoi nt m entof the exe cut or as s etf or th i n § 9- 1- 21. ” G regory , 713 A . 2d at775. ¶ 8 7 . F u rth e r, o th e r c o u rts h a v e a d d re ss e d th is i ss u e , fin d in g th a t su c h a n iss u e o f c a p a c ity i s notan i ncur abl e def

ectand thats ubs t i tut i on i s pr oper . I n A dvanced M agneti cs, I

nc. v. B ayf r ont P ar tners, I

nc. , 106 F. 3d 11 ( 2nd C i r . 1997) , the U
. S. C our tof A ppeal s f

orthe Second C i r cui ts ai d that : “A R ul e 17( a) subs t i tut i on of pl ai nt i f f s s houl d be l i ber al l y al l ow ed
w hen t he cha nge i s m er el y f or m al and i n no w ay al t er s the or i gi nal compl ai nt ’ s f actual al l egat i ons a s t o the event s orthe part i ci pant s . ” Id . a t 2 0 . See al s o Cib r a n E n te r

p r is e s, I n c ., v. B PP r oduct

s of N or th A m er i ca, I

nc. , 3 6 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 5 1 (S
. D . F la. 2 0 0 5 ).

### 37

¶88. I n Curr ie rv. Sut he r land , 215 P. 3d 1155 ( C ol o. A pp. 20 08 ), the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s , w hi ch the maj or i ty r el i es on as s t at ed pr evi ous l y her ei n, s ai d:

N at i onal l y, ther e r emai ns a s pl i tof author i ty as t o w hethernami ng a non- exi s t entdef

endanti s an i s s ue of

capa ci ty ors ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. B ut , the m odern tr end i s cons i s t entw i th A s hton and SM LL . A ccor di ng t o one co m m en tat o r: Som e ea r l y deci s i ons s ugges t ed thata de f ecti n c apac i ty depr i ves the courtof

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, s i nce a r eal cas e or contr over s y does notexi s tw hen one of the part i es i s i ncapa bl e of s ui ng orbei ng s ued, al though more r ece nta uthor i ty ha s r ej ect ed thatchar act er i zat i on. T o tr eatcapa ci ty probl ems as s ubj ect m a tter ju ris d ictio n d e fe c ts s e e m s to e x a g g e ra ted th e ir s ig n if ic a n c e . . . . 6 A C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t, A rt h u r R . M ille r & M a ry K a y K a n e , Feder alP r act i ce an d P rocedu re § 1 5 5 9 (2d ed
. 1 9 9 0 ) (f o o tno tes o m itted). T hus , ther e i s a s i gni f

i cantbody of

m or e r ece ntauthor i ty hol di ng i n the cont extof

s ui t s i nvol vi ng dece dent s ’ es t at es thatnam i ng a non- exi s t ent d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t im p lic a te a c o u rt ’s su b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See V or hees , 153 P. 3d at1232- 33 ( not i ng conf us i on overthe ques t i on s of capaci ty and s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on, K ans as courtconcl uded thatal though the named def endantw as nota l egal ent i ty and di d nothave the capaci ty t o be s ued, the trial c o u rt’s su b

jec t ju risd ictio n w a s n o t im p lica ted ); A ustin Nurs ing Ctr. , I nc. v. L o v a to , 171 S. W . 3d 845, 849, 853 ( T ex. 2005) ( no t i ng t he di f f er ence betw een capa ci ty and s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i n cont extof s ui ti nvol vi ng es t at e notf

or m al l y opened, and not i ng thatw hen the or i gi nal pet i t i on named onl y the es t at e i t s el f

, t he def ectw as i n capac i ty and an amended pet i t i on f i l ed agai ns tthe r epr es ent at i ve w as notbarr ed ( ci t i ng P r i ce v. E s tate of A nders on , 522 S. W . 2d 690, 692 ( T ex. 1975) ) ) ; s ee a l s o H am ilton v. B lackm an , 915 P. 2d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 8 (A las k a 1 9 9 6 ) (c o lle c tin g c a se s a n d sta tin g : “W e th u s a g re e w ith th e fe d e ra l co u rts a n d th o se sta te c o u rts h o ld in g sim ila rly th a t am e n d m e n ts addi ng t he r epr es ent at i ves of t he es t at es of

de cea s ed per s ons a s de f endant s m ay r el at e bac k t o the dat e o f t he or i gi nal pl eadi ngs , even i f the or i gi nal pl eadi ng e rro n e o u sly n a m e d o n ly th e d e c e d e n t as th e d e fe n d a n t.”); Muham m ed v. W elch , 675 N . W . 2d 402, 412 ( N . D . 2004) ( not i ng, w i t h ci t at i on, thatthe “nul l i ty theory” has r ece nt l y f al l en i nt o di s f

avor , a nd of

f eri ng an al t ernat i ve b ase d o n fulfi ll ing req u ir em en ts of R u le 15 (c)).

### 38 T hus , w e agr ee w i th A s ht on and SM L L thata pa r ty' s c apac i ty t o s ue or be s ued does notaf

f ectt he cour t ' s subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, and w e al s o agr ee w i th the r eas oni ng of thos e cour t s i n otherj ur i s di ct i ons thathave c oncl uded that nami ng a non- exi s t entent i ty as a de f endanti s an i s s ue notof s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on, butof

capa ci ty. Si m i l ar l y, beca us e w e have concl uded thatna m i ng a def endantw i thout capac i ty is n o t an i ncu rabl e defectof subj ectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on , w e al so d is a g re e w ith p lain tiffs' a rg u m e n t th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y e x e rc isin g its j ur i s di ct i on t o al l ow an amendm entt o the or i gi nal compl ai ntt o s ubst i tute a p a rt y w ith c a p a c it y . S e e , e .g ., B e n to n v. A da ms , 56 P. 3d 81, 84 ( C ol o. 2002) ( amendm entpe r m i t t ed w hen change i n c apac i ty) ; see al s o D oe v. Heitler , 26 P. 3d 539, 544- 45 ( C ol o. A pp. 2001) ( w her e courtdi s m i s s ed a c om pl ai ntf or lack o f subject m att er jurisdicti o n w h en itfail ed to n am e a p arty p lai n ti ff, i ns t ead us i ng “J ohn D oe, ” i tw as err orf orcourtnott o al l ow am endmentof co m p lai n t)
. C urr ier , 215 P. 3d at1160- 61. ¶ 8 9 . A s d isc u ss e d p re v io u sly h e re in , R u le 1 7 (a ) p lain ly sta tes th a t: No a c t i o n s h a l l b e d i s mi s s e d o n th e g r o u n d th a ti ti s n o tp r o s e c u t e d i n th e n a me of the r eal pa r ty i n i nt er es tunt i l a r eas onabl e t i m e has be en al l ow ed aft er obj ect i on f

orr at i f i cat i on o f

comm ence m entof

the ac t i on by, orj oi nderor s ubs t i tut i on of

, the r eal party i n i nt er es t ; and s uch r at i f i cat i on, j oi nderor s ubs t i tut i on s hal l have the s ame ef f ectas i f t he act i on had bee n com m ence d in th e n a m e o f th e re a l p a rty in in ter e st. M i s s . R . C i v. P. 17( a) ( emphasi s added)
. T he rul e cl ear l y s peaks of the comm ence m entof

t he act i on. I f the act i on i s com m ence d by s om eone othert han t he r eal par ty i n i nt er es t , t he ac t i on
w i l l notbe di s m i s s ed unt i l a r eas onabl e t i m e f ors ubs t i tut i on has been a l l ow ed. A dece as ed in d iv id u a l cle a rly w o u ld fa ll i n to th e c a teg o ry o f so m e o n e o th e r th a n th e re a l p a rty in in ter e st. Forthes e r eas ons , I di s agr ee w i th t he err oneous f i ndi ng of the maj or i ty. ¶90. T he m aj or i ty f

ur therf i nds that , even i f

s ubs t i tut i on w er e pr oper , the or i gi nal compl ai nt
w as a nul l i ty and t he am ended c om pl ai ntw as notf i l ed w i thi n the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. T he m aj ori ty cit es T ol li verv. Mladineo , 9 8 7 S o . 2 d 9 8 9 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ),

### 39

f orthe pr opos i t i on thatt ol l i ng cannotoccurw her e a f i l i ng i s voi d and a j ur i s di ct i onal nul l i ty. T ol li veris n o t b in d in g a u th o ri ty o n th is C o u rt a n d c a n a ls o b e d is tin g u is h e d
. ¶91. I n T

ol li ver , the br other of a dece dent , w ho w as s ur vived by a hus band and chi l dr en, fi le d a w ro n g fu l- d e a th la w s u it a g a in s t d e f e n d a n t d o c to rs . Id . at992. T he doct or s f i l ed a
m o tio n to d is m is s . Id . T he pl ai nt i f f’ s m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e dece dent ’ s s on w as gr ant ed p u rs u a n t t o R u le 1 5 o f th e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . Id . H ow ever , c ouns el f or pl ai nt i f f l at erf ai l ed t o appea rf

ora m andat ory docketcal l , and the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed f or fa ilu re to p ro s e c u te u n d e r R u le 4 1 (b ) o f t h e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . Id . T he p la in tif f a p p e a le d th e d is m is s a l, a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts c ro s s -a p p e a le d
. Id . at 992 -93. T he def endant s as s ert ed thatsubs t i tut i on w as i m pr operunderR ul e 15 and thatthe amended
c o m p la in t w a s fi le d a ft e r t h e e x p ir a tio n o f t h e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . Id . at993. T he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatthe dec edent ’ s br otherl acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng the l aw sui tand t hatt he
a m e n d e d c o m p la in t c o u ld n o t r e la te b a c k to th e o ri g in a l f ilin g . Id . at995- 96, 999. T her ef or e, the courttr eat ed the amended c om pl ai nta s a n or i gi nal f i l i ng a nd f

ound thati tw as barr ed by th e a p p li c a b le s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . Id . at 9 9 6 , 9 9 9 . T h e m a jo rity o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f ai l ed t o addr es s the appl i cat i on of R ul e 17 i n T

ol li ver . Id . at1000. ¶92. T he maj or i ty i gnor es the very l anguage of R ul e 17( a) , a s quot ed above , w hi ch s t at es th a t“ s u b s t i tu t i o n s h a l l h a v e th e s a me e f f e c ta s i f th e a c t i o n h a d b e e n c o mme n c e d i n th e n a me of the r eal party i n i nt er es t . ” M i s s . R . C i v. P . 17(a )
. “C om m ence d” cl ear l y m eans w hen the act i on w as f

i l ed. T her ef

or e, M ary “ s t eps i nt o the s hoes ” of L onni e atthe t i m e the ac t i on w as fi le d
. K irk v. P ope , 973 So. 2d 981, 990 ( M i s s . 2007)
. Fu rther , othercourt s have s ai d t hat
s u b s ti tu ti o n u n d e r R u le 1 7 (a ) r e la te s b a c k to th e fi lin g o f t h e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. See

### 40

A dvanced M

agneti cs, I

nc. , 106 F. 3d at20- 21; and G lick ste in , 922 F . 2d at668. T her ef or e, the subs t i tut i on of M ary P i t t m an r el at ed back t o t he or i gi nal f i l i ng and w as notbarr ed by the
a p p lic a b le s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . ¶93. T r ane s t at es thatthe appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed M ar ch 11, 2004, w hi ch
w as thr ee ye ar s af

t erL onni e Pi t t m an’ s death on M ar ch 11, 2001. T he s ugges t i on of death w as no tfi l ed u nti l A pri l 16 , 2 0 0 4 , w hich w as af t er the ex pir at i on of the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. Fur ther , the r ecor d r ef

l ect s no oppos i t i on t o the mot i on for s ubs t i tut i on of M ary Pi t t m an. A l s o, N ett l es w as nots ever ed fr om the acti on unt i l af t erthe s ubs t i tut i on. T he “i nt er es t s of ju stic e ” a re n o t se rv e d b y w ro n g fu lly d e n y in g s u b stitu tio n w h ich is c lea rly p ro p e r u n d e r R u le 1 7 (a ), E s pos ito, a n d th e o th e r a u th o rity c ited h e re in . M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 7 (a ); E sp o sito , 36 8 F. 3d 1271. B eca us e T r ane has f ai l ed t o demonstr at e thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa c t, I w o u ld a ffirm th e trial c o u rt. T h e re fo re , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. KI TC HENS AND CHAN DL ER , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.