Opinion ID: 1195176
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ratification in New Mexico

Text: 31. New Mexico's Rule 1-017(A) differs from its counterpart in the federal rules by granting discretion to the trial court in whether to allow ratification. Compare Rule 1-017(A) (Where it appears that an action, by reason of honest mistake, is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, the court may allow a reasonable time for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest....) (emphasis added), with Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ( No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest....) (emphasis added). This sentence in the federal rule was added in 1966 in order to avoid forfeiture and injustice when an understandable mistake has been made in selecting the party in whose name the action should be brought. 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1555, at 411-12 (1990). This purpose reflects the general goal of the federal rules to reduce the burden on parties at the pleading stage and to alleviate the risk of dismissal with prejudice based on an initial innocent miscalculation. Id. § 1555, at 412-14. While the federal rule is mandatory, courts have inferred a prerequisite of understandable mistake and a lack of prejudice to the defendant. Arabian Am. Oil Co. v. Scarfone, 939 F.2d 1472, 1477 (11th Cir. 1991). In addition, the purpose of this portion of Rule 17 must be viewed in context with the purpose of requiring prosecution by the real party in interest: to ensure res judicata effect of the judgment and to ensure that the interests involved otherwise are properly protected. Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a) advisory committee's note (1966 Amendment). [R]atification has res judicata effect on ratifying parties and allows them an opportunity to protect their interests. ICON Group, Inc. v. Mahogany Run Dev. Corp., 829 F.2d 473, 477 (3d Cir.1987). 32. The manner in which Rule 1-017(A) differs from the mandatory nature of the federal rule implies a broader discretion over such matters in New Mexico trial courts. Nonetheless, New Mexico's Rules of Civil Procedure have a similar overall goal of making pleading less burdensome. See Rule 1-008(A) NMRA 1997 (requiring notice pleading); Las Luminarias of the N.M. Council of the Blind v. Isengard, 92 N.M. 297, 300, 587 P.2d 444, 447 (Ct.App.1978) (New Mexico adheres to the broad purposes of the Rules of Civil Procedure and construes the rules liberally, particularly as they apply to pleading.). We also have a similar specific goal in requiring prosecution by the real party in interest. See Daniels Ins., 106 N.M. at 331, 742 P.2d at 543; cf. United Nuclear Corp. v. Fort, 102 N.M. 756, 761, 700 P.2d 1005, 1010 (Ct.App.1985) (stating that the rule disfavoring the splitting of causes of action is grounded upon public policy designed to avoid a multiplicity of suits). Thus, New Mexico cases are consistent with the federal rule and federal cases in construing the policies served by providing an opportunity for ratification. See Chavez v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 103 N.M. 606, 610, 711 P.2d 883, 887 (1985) (discussing Rule 1-017(A) and the principle that in the interests of justice and to promote the adjudication of a case upon its merits, amendments should be freely granted); cf. Rule 1-021 NMRA 1997 ( Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action.) (emphasis added). While decisions under Rule 1-017(A) typically will rest in the sound discretion of the trial court, the policies underlying the rule support a liberal interpretation in favor of the movant.