Source: http://thecabadvantage.com/articles/miller-v-panther-ii-transportation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:46:43+00:00

Document:
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
PANTHER II TRANSPORTATION, INC., Expediter Services, LLC, William A. Hall, Defendants.
Austin Andreas, James F. Ludlow, Lance R. Ladendorf, Law Offices of James F. Ludlow, Attorney at Law, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.
Donald W. DeVitt, Pro Hac Vice, Scopelitis Garvin Light & Hanson, Chicago, IL, Renea Elaine Hooper, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Indianpolis, IN, for Defendants.
Now, Expediter, one of the newly-joined parties, has filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that it had no reason to believe it would have been sued but for a mistake and that Mr. Miller’s suit is therefore time-barred. [Filing No. 61.] Expediter’s Motion should have been styled a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. But Mr. Miller recognized this fact and took the opportunity to submit evidence in response. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.”). The undisputed evidence provides no basis for relation back, rendering Mr. Miller’s claim against Expediter untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. The Court, construing Expediter’s Motion as a motion for summary judgment, GRANTS the Motion for the reasons described below.
As alluded to above, a threshold issue in assessing Expediter’s Motion is determining the applicable legal standard. Expediter has filed its Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which provides a mechanism for challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint, arguing that Mr. Miller’s Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. “Dismissing a complaint as untimely at the pleading stage is an unusual step, since a complaint need not anticipate and overcome affirmative defenses,” except in the rare situation where the plaintiff “alleges facts sufficient to establish a statute of limitations defense.” Sidney Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 782 F.3d 922, 928 (7th Cir. 2015). This would be such a situation given that the dates set forth in the Amended Complaint establish its untimeliness, except that Mr. Miller has raised the relation-back doctrine to resist the application of the statute of limitations. Expediter anticipated this (which is unsurprising, given the procedural history of this matter), and therefore submitted a declaration from its president in support of its Motion. Expediter’s decision to present “matters outside the pleadings” means that it should have filed its motion as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, consistent with the ordinary procedure for resolving affirmative defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Sidney Hillman, 782 F.3d at 928.
*2 The result is that the Court must either exclude Expediter’s evidence or treat the motion “as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Mr. Miller likewise recognized that resolving Expediter’s Motion required consideration of outside evidence, having submitted numerous exhibits in opposition. He also affirmatively asserts that the Court “should construe the Motion under [Rule 56] as a Motion for Summary Judgment.” [Filing No. 76 at 9.] Based upon this affirmative assertion and recognition that Expediter’s Motion should be resolved under the parameters of Rule 56, cf. Sansone v. Brennan, 2019 WL 1062288 (7th Cir. 2019) (publication pending) (“Waiver is intentionally abandoning a known right.”), the Court concludes that all parties have received “a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Accordingly, the Court treats Expediter’s Motion as a motion for summary judgment. As noted, Mr. Miller anticipated the treatment of Expediter’s Motion as one for summary judgment, and he responded accordingly, also submitting matters outside the record. He has therefore had a full opportunity to be heard, and Expediter’s motion is ripe for consideration.
A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As the current version of Rule 56 makes clear, whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions, documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Affidavits or declarations must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on matters stated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Failure to properly support a fact in opposition to a movant’s factual assertion can result in the movant’s fact being considered undisputed, and potentially in the grant of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, while there may be facts that are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate if those facts are not outcome determinative. Harper v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 433 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir. 2005). Fact disputes that are irrelevant to the legal question will not suffice to defeat summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
On summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court need only consider the cited materials, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has “repeatedly assured the district courts that they are not required to scour every inch of the record for evidence that is potentially relevant to the summary judgment motion before them,” Johnson, 325 F.3d at 898. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial is resolved against the moving party. Ponsetti v. GE Pension Plan, 614 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2010).
*3 The following factual background is set forth pursuant to the standards detailed above. The facts stated are not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light most favorable to “the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.” Premcor USA, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2005).
Through discovery, Mr. Miller learned that Mr. Hall was the driver of the box truck and that he was (or may have been) an employee of Expediter.
*4 On October 1, 2018, Expediter filed the instant Motion, [Filing No. 61], which the Court has construed as a motion for summary judgment. Expediter’s Motion is now fully briefed and ripe for consideration.
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.
*5 Now, however, Expediter is a party, and the undisputed evidence conclusively demonstrates that it had no reason to believe that it would have been joined “but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” Mr. Miller’s counsel’s letter to Expediter explained only that Mr. Hall had stated that “he was an employee of Expediter Services at the time of [the] accident” and that, had he “known this information previously, [he] would have named Expediter Services as a party defendant in the lawsuit.” [Filing No. 76-4 at 1.] At the time, Expediter knew that it had an independent contractor relationship with Mr. Hall and that Panther was responsible for dispatching Mr. Hall for trucking assignments. As such, Expediter had no reason to believe that its omission from this lawsuit was a mistake.
Mr. Miller’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, Mr. Hall’s conclusory statement about being an Expediter employee is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning Mr. Hall’s relationship with Expediter. Moreover, in the final analysis, the precise legal contours of that relationship are irrelevant to whether Expediter should have known that it would have been sued except to the extent the relationship put Expediter on notice that it would have been sued. See Joseph, 638 F.3d at 560 (holding that the nature of the contractual relationships issue put unnamed, but related, corporate defendant on notice that it would have been named as a defendant but for the plaintiff’s mistake). One can imagine a situation where a company attaches an “independent contractor” label to a relationship with an individual, but actually carries out all of the functions of an employer. In such a situation, the company could not hide behind the superficial language of its contract to argue against relation back. But Mr. Hall’s statements about being “paid through” Expediter and being “just an employee of Expediter” do not suffice against the unrebutted terms of the contracts at issue. Rather, the undisputed evidence shows that it was Panther who dispatched Expediter and who has admitted that Mr. Hall was acting as its agent at the time of the incident. Given that information, Expediter had no reason to believe that Mr. Miller had made a mistake in omitting it, but instead reasonably believed that it had not been named as a defendant because it lacked the required agency relationship for vicarious liability.
In other words, Expediter knew that Mr. Hall had sued Panther—a proper party to this matter. From Expediter’s perspective, Mr. Miller’s decision to sue a proper party appeared to be anything but a mistake, and nothing about Mr. Hall’s statement impacts that assessment. Indeed, Panther has conclusively admitted, in its Answer, that it is “responsible for the conduct of defendant Hall.” [Filing No. 43 at 5.] That admission is “binding upon the party making [it]” and “may not be controverted”; in fact, the admission “ha[s] the effect of withdrawing [the issue] from contention.” Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194, 1198 n.9 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted). As such, Panther has no leeway to withdraw or challenge its status as a proper party for secondary liability for Mr. Hall’s alleged negligence. Mr. Miller therefore faces no risk that he may lack a remedy should he be able to prove that Mr. Hall was negligent.
Finally, Mr. Miller’s reliance on Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 15(C) is likewise misplaced. Trial Rule 15(C), like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), provides that a belated amendment may relate back if, among other things, “the party to be brought in by amendment[ ] … knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against [it].” Mr. Miller cites a string of cases to illustrate “the relative liberality of Indiana law regarding what constitutes a ‘mistake.’ ” [Filing No. 76 at 7.] But Mr. Miller’s argument again is incorrectly focused on what he knew or did instead of what Expediter knew or should have known. Again, the evidence does not support Mr. Miller’s assertion that Expediter should have known that it was omitted because of a mistake instead of being omitted because it was not Mr. Miller’s employer.
*6 Moreover, Indiana precedent does not provide Mr. Miller with the favorable interpretation of “mistake” set forth in Krupski and Joseph. In Miller v. Danz, 36 N.E.3d 455 (Ind. 2015), an opinion issued long after Krupski, Joseph, and the cases cited in Mr. Miller’s brief, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the argument that the “lack of knowledge of [a defendant’s] identity would qualify as a mistake for purposes of relation back under Trial Rule 15(C).” Id. at 457. As the court explained, reminiscent of the reasoning set forth in the pre-Krupski opinion of Hall v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 469 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2006), “Adding a new party because there has been a mistake concerning the identity of the proper defendant, i.e. a misnomer, is not akin to inserting a name for a previously unknown ‘John Doe’ defendant.” Miller, 36 N.E.3d at 458. And without a “ ‘mistake,’ Trial Rule 15(C) has no application.” Id. Therefore, in addition to falling short under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), Mr. Miller’s Amended Complaint does not relate back under Trial Rule 15(C).
Properly focusing the inquiry on whether Expediter knew or should have known, the Court concludes that the undisputed evidence provided Expediter with no reason to believe that it would have been sued but for Mr. Miller’s mistake. Mr. Miller’s time-barred claim against Expediter therefore does not relate back to the timely-filed original Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). For the same reason, in addition to the Indiana Supreme Court’s distinct interpretation of “mistake,” Mr. Miller’s Amended Complaint does not relate back under Trial Rule 15(C). The Court construes Expediter’s Motion to Dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and, so construed, GRANTS the Motion  because Mr. Miller’s claim against Expediter is barred by the statute of limitations. Because Mr. Miller’s Amended Complaint remains pending against Panther and Mr. Hall, no partial final judgment will issue.
Next Next post: Witte v. Zurich American Insurance Co.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.