Opinion ID: 4560671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendant-Got-Lucky Factor

Text: The majority appears to believe that if the intended target of litigation somehow learns of the plaintiff’s misjoinder mistake, either by happenstance or from reading the complaint, then the mistake is no longer a misjoinder. It is transformed into a misnomer. If that were true, a plaintiff could mistakenly sue Honda for a product defect in a Camry. As long as Toyota learned of the suit and remembered that it, not Honda, manufactured the Camry, then what was an obvious misjoinder would be downgraded to a mere misnomer. This simple fallacy seems to be fully 26 embraced by the majority. The entire majority opinion can be summarized by just one of its sentences: “Hampton [the plaintiff] sued the correct person — the driver — but used the wrong name,” ante at 6, the name of the owner. That is no different from saying, to use the ToyotaHonda hypothetical, that the plaintiff sued the “correct” manufacturer — Toyota — but used the “wrong name,” Honda. The majority’s recitation of the complaint veils this conceptual flaw. The majority quotes the allegations in the initial complaint that named Michael P. Meyer as the defendant and then characterizes each of the allegations as stating generically that “the driver” performed each of the negligent acts leading to the accident. See, e.g., ante at 1 (“The complaint alleged that at the time of the collision the driver of the Suburban ‘was approaching a red light on Midlothian Turnpike and attempting to make a left hand turn.’” (emphasis added)); ante at 1 (“It alleged that the driver had a duty ‘to operate his vehicle with reasonable care and with due regard for others using the road.’” (emphasis added)); ante at 1-2 (“It alleged that the driver ‘carelessly, recklessly, and negligently operated his vehicle, disregarding a red light, and crashing into the front of the vehicle in which’ Hampton was a passenger.” (emphasis added)); ante at 2 (“It alleged that the driver of the Suburban was negligent [in various ways].” (emphasis added)). The full quotation of each allegation from the complaint, however, does not speak generically of “the driver” performing the negligent acts. Instead, in every instance, the complaint specifically names the “Defendant, Michael P. Meyer” as the tortfeasor using his correct name. See, e.g., J.A. at 7 (“At the time and place aforesaid, Defendant, Michael P. Meyer, was approaching a red light on Midlothian Turnpike and attempting to make a left hand turn . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. at 8 (“[I]t was the duty of the Defendant, Michael P. Meyer to operate his vehicle with reasonable care and with due regard for others using the road.” 27 (emphasis added)); id. (“Notwithstanding said duties, Defendant, Michael P. Meyer, did then and there so carelessly, recklessly, and negligently operate[] his vehicle, by disregarding a red light, and crashing into the front of the vehicle in which Plaintiff, Calvin Hampton was riding.” (emphasis added)); id. (“Defendant, Michael P. Meyer, was negligent [in various ways].” (emphasis added)). The complaint identifies “Michael P. Meyer” ten times. Id. at 7-9. On each occasion, he is alleged to be the defendant who had negligently driven the vehicle and had injured the plaintiff. The “WHEREFORE” clause demands judgment against “Michael P. Meyer” alone. Id. at 9. The complaint nowhere generically identifies “the driver” as the defendant. Compare id. at 7-9, with ante at 1-2. The multiple substitutions of “the driver” (generically stated in the majority opinion) for “Michael P. Meyer” (specifically stated in the complaint) are distracting but not enough so to obscure the obvious fact that the plaintiff did not mistakenly spell the correct party’s name. The plaintiff sued and correctly spelled the wrong party’s name. Once again, “[a] misnomer ‘arises when the right person is incorrectly named, not where the wrong person is named.’” Ricketts, 293 Va. at 110-11. In the present case, it is alleged that the “right person,” id., knew that his legal adversary had mistakenly sued the “wrong person,” id. If that were legally dispositive, however, we have incorrectly decided several prior misjoinder cases in which this fact was clearly present. See, e.g., Estate of James, 277 Va. at 455-56; Miller, 274 Va. at 368; Cook, 260 Va. at 451; Swann, 252 Va. at 184. Summarizing several of these cases, Justice Koontz has explained: As in Cook and Miller, there was no dispute in Swann as to whether the pleading naming the incorrect party could have been interpreted as actually naming the proper party. In each case, respectively, the pleading clearly named the incompetent, the 28 locality, and the estate, not the guardian, the governing body, or the personal representative . . . . .... Because we have determined that the estate was the party defendant named by the amended motion for judgment, it follows that this case is controlled by Swann, unless there is merit in Peyton’s contentions that Swann can be distinguished on the ground that despite the “misnomer” of the proper party defendant, here [the administrator], the proper party, was identified in the amended motion for judgment and was actually served with that pleading. Accordingly, [the plaintiff] contends that there would be no prejudice in allowing a correction of the “misnomer.” We disagree with those contentions. Estate of James, 277 Va. at 454, 456. 6 Based upon this reasoning, the unanimous Court in Estate of James held that the plaintiff’s attempt to change the defendant’s name from “Estate of Robert Judson James, Administrator, Edwin F. Gentry, Esq.” (the incorrect party) to “Edwin F. Gentry, Esq., Administrator of the Estate of Robert Judson James” (the correct party) constituted a misjoinder, not a misnomer. Id. at 456. In Estate of James, as well as many of the other Virginia misjoinder cases, the intended target of the litigation would have known of the misjoinder mistake. But in none of those cases did that fact, by itself, change the legal nature of the mistake from a misjoinder into a misnomer. 6 The majority mentions a footnote in my Volk dissent, ante at 11 n.4, in which I noted that “[t]he plaintiff has never alleged that anyone misled her or that she reasonably relied on incorrect information supplied by others,” Volk, 291 Va. at 69 n.2 (Kelsey, J., dissenting). The majority’s intended implication is that, because I mentioned that factual omission in Volk, I must have thought it was legally relevant or perhaps even legally dispositive. My reason in pointing out that factual omission in Volk, however, was to eliminate the need to address at length its legal irrelevance — not to sub silentio concede the salience of some unspoken legal principle. That footnote was similar to saying, “Judge, the plaintiff did not plead a breach of contract claim.” Saying so, however, does not imply a concession that the breach of contract claim would have been legally successful had it been pleaded. 29