Opinion ID: 863988
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the plaintiff demonstrated good

Text: CAUSE FOR SERVING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT MORE THAN 120 DAYS AFTER EXECUTION OF AN ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WHERE THE FILE MAINTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT CLERK WAS INEXPLICABLY LOST; THE CLERK FAILED TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE EXECUTED ORDER TO THE PARTIES AS REQUIRED BY M.R.C.P. 77(D); AND, THE AMENDING PLAINTIFF SERVED THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF LEARNING THE ORDER GRANTING AMENDMENT WAS EXECUTED BY THE COURT. (WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) ¶3. Curry seeks a ruling from this Court that a motion to amend, with the amended complaint attached to the motion, tolls the statute of limitations when the motion is made prior to the running of the limitations period. This is to be distinguished from the use of the relation back provision of M.R.C.P. 15(c) which allows for an amended complaint to be considered as filed on the date the original complaint was filed under 3 Service of process was not made upon Ladonna Turner (Hart Turner's mother) and she is not a party in this appeal. 3 certain circumstances. Curry points to a handful of cases from federal courts in support of this language and asks this Court to follow their lead. ¶4. The new defendants refer this Court to case law in Mississippi which is over one hundred years old. These cases obviously predate the adoption of the rules of civil procedure, but support their argument that an amended complaint is only effective when filed. Therefore, if an amended complaint is filed after the statute of limitations has run–regardless of when the motion to amend was made–the statute of limitations bars suits against newly named defendants. Each of these positions and the authority supporting them is examined below. ¶5. Rule 15 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure governs the process of amending complaints and provides in relevant part: (a) Amendments. A party may amend his pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any time within thirty days after it is served. . . . Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party; leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. . . . ... (c) Relation back of Amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(h) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him. An amendment pursuant to Rule 9(h) is not an amendment changing the 4 party against whom a claim is asserted and such amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. M.R.C.P. 15(a), (c) (emphasis added). The italicized portion was added July 1, 1998. ¶6. As stated above, Curry relies primarily upon federal law to support her position. In a case decided before the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fifth Circuit reversed an Alabama district court which had dismissed a defendant on an amended complaint because the amended complaint was not filed before the statute of limitations period expired. Rademaker v. E.D. Flynn Exp. Co., 17 F.2d 15 (5th Cir. 1927). The plaintiff had filed suit against a company which had sold its interest in the schooner involved in the injury to the defendant without the plaintiff's knowledge. When the plaintiff learned of the mistake before the statute of limitations had run, he moved the district court for leave to amend the complaint to name the new owner as the defendant. Id. at 16. That same day, the district court granted the motion. However, the amended complaint was not formally filed with the court until after the statute of limitations had run. Id. The Fifth Circuit explained its reasoning for reversing the district court's dismissal as follows: Leave was not asked to change any averment of fact upon which liability was asserted, or the grounds upon which recovery was originally sought, but merely to make defendant a party because of its ownership of a stated interest in the schooner. In this state of the pleadings, process was issued and served upon defendant, before any right of action against it was barred. While there are cases to the contrary, we think the better rule, supported by the weight of authority, is that an application for leave to amend, as full and comprehensive as this one is in its averment of facts, stands in the place of an actual amendment. Id. at 17 (citations omitted). Rademaker was relied upon by a Mississippi federal district court which held that the filing of a motion to amend and attaching the amended complaint before the statute of limitations had run tolled the statute of limitations on the added Plaintiffs' claims for a reasonable time. 5 Bradley v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 46 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586 (S.D. Miss. 1999). In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds that the statute of limitations had run against the new plaintiffs on the amended complaint, the district court held that an eight-month delay between the district court's granting the motion to amend the complaint and the ultimate filing of the amended complaint was unreasonable. Id. at 586. However, it found the defendant was not prejudiced by the delay because it conducted discovery and deposed the new plaintiffs shortly after the order granting the motion to amend. Id. at 586-87. ¶7. The Eighth Circuit also relied upon Rademaker when it held that a motion to amend, coupled with an attached amended complaint, serves to toll the statute limitations when filed before the limitations period ends. Mayes v. AT&T Info. Sys., Inc., 867 F.2d 1172 (8th Cir. 1989). We have also examined cases from federal district courts and various state courts regarding this matter. ¶8. The new defendants' argument is based upon pre-Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure cases decided by this Court. These cases stand for the general proposition that amended complaints filed after the statute of limitations had run will not withstand the bar of the statute of limitations. See Potts v. Hines, 57 Miss. 735 (1880); Green v. Bd. of Tippah County Supervisors, 58 Miss. 337 (1880); Brown v. Goolsby, 34 Miss. 437 (1857). The comment to Rule 15 helps put Potts and Goolsby in context: Prior to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, it was the law that amendments relate back to the date of the original pleading only when, generally, the amended bill stated no new cause of action and brought in no new parties. M.R.C.P. 15 cmt. (citing Potts and Goolsby). ¶9. It is noteworthy that Rule 15 makes no reference as to when the relation back provisions in subsection (c) begin to apply once an answer to the complaint has been filed. This Court has applied the relation back doctrine to a motion to amend the original complaint filed after the statute of limitations has 6 run. See Estes v. Starnes, 732 So. 2d 251 (Miss. 1999); Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So. 2d 1252 (Miss. 1993); Parker v. Miss. Game & Fish Comm'n, 555 So. 2d 725 (Miss. 1989). However, this case concerns a motion to amend filed before the statute of limitations had run but not ruled upon until after the limitations period had elapsed. The new defendants encourage this Court to apply the relation back doctrine to this situation as well. In its order of dismissal, this is the route the trial court took. It specifically held that the filing of a motion to amend before the statute of limitations runs does not toll the limitations period. It also held the new claims against the new defendants do not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. ¶10. According to the first prong of the relation back test, in order to relate back the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading [must arise] out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. M.R.C.P. 15(c). The original complaint named only Hart Turner and Paul Stewart as defendants and alleged they both negligently and intentionally caused the death of Everett Curry. The claims against Dent, Trent, and Ladonna Turner involve a claim of negligent entrustment. We are uncertain how long ago the asserted negligent act of entrusting the gun used by Hart Turner to kill Everett Curry was committed or whether that act arose out of the same conduct which killed Everett Curry. We do, however, agree with the circuit judge that the claims the amended complaint brings against the new defendants do not relate back to the original filing of the complaint because the requirements of the second prong--notice and mistake--have not been met by Curry: An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(h) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and 7 (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him. An amendment pursuant to Rule 9(h) is not an amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted and such amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. M.R.C.P. 15(c). The requirements of these two subsections must be fulfilled before the statute of limitations has run or within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint. Brown v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 669 So. 2d 92, 94 (Miss. 1996) (citing Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986)). Soon after the Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. case, Rule 15(c) was changed to embody its holding. ¶11. The record does not show that Trent, Dent, and Ladonna Turner were provided any notice of the filing of the original complaint. Curry claims that she first learned she may have a cause of action against them after deposing Ladonna Turner on June 5, 1998. There is no indication in the record the Turners were served with the original complaint or the motion to amend with the amended complaint attached within 120 days after the statute of limitations elapsed. They have suffered no prejudice save the expiration of the time to file suit in the statute of limitations. Furthermore, Trent, Dent, and Ladonna Turner were not being substituted for fictitious parties in the original complaint. The trial court found these facts to be fatal to Curry's claims against them. The trial court's analysis is correct, and the amended complaint against Trent, Dent, and Ladonna Turner does not relate back to the original filing of the complaint under Rule 15(c). Since the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations ran against these defendants and does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint, the trial court was correct in dismissing these defendants. 8 ¶12. The premises liability claim against Money Pillai is inextricably entwined with Everett Curry's murder on the premises of Mims One Stop. He therefore passes the first prong of the relation back doctrine. However, the record does not indicate that he was made aware of the filing of the original complaint. Nor does the record reflect he was provided a copy of the motion to amend with the amended complaint attached within 120 days after the statute of limitations ran. Pillai was not named as a fictitious party on the original complaint nor was his identity confused with Paul Stewart or Hart Turner. Instead, it seems that Curry was merely tardy in discovering identity of the owner of Mims One Stop (a/k/a Pillai Grocery) or filing the amended complaint naming Pillai as a defendant. Pillai has suffered no prejudice save the expiration of the time allowed to bring suit against him under the statute of limitations. The trial court found these facts insufficient for the amended complaint to relate back to the filing of the original complaint. We agree that the second prong of the relation back doctrine has not been satisfied as to Pillai either. Since the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations ran against him, the trial court was correct in dismissing the suit against him. ¶13. After examining the submitted authority, we conclude that the trial court correctly used the relation back doctrine found in Rule 15(c). The motion to amend does not toll the statute of limitations until the trial court rules on the motion. The new defendants were provided no notice of this suit nor was there any mistake as to their identity during the statute of limitations or 120 days after the statute of limitations ran. It is conceivable that the first notice they had that a complaint was filed against them was when they were served in late November and early December of 1999, eleven months after the statute of limitations expired. Therefore, the trial court's ruling is affirmed. ¶14. As we have reached this conclusion with regard to the first issue, the second need not be addressed. 9