Opinion ID: 4265632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relation Back to the Time of Filing

Text: ¶30. We now turn to the second issue in our analysis: whether Upton’s addition of UMMC in the amended complaint relates back to the time of filing of the original suit for the purpose of determining venue. Upton argues that it does, but Thompson, Leek, HC, SMEP, and FGH contend that the original complaint should govern this Court’s analysis. 13 ¶31. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), which governs Mississippi’s relation-back doctrine, provides: (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 the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining the party’s 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 the party. 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(a), (c)(2). Rule 9(h) reads: (h) Fictitious Parties. When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in his pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when his true name is discovered the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name and giving proper notice to the opposing party. M.R.C.P. 9(h). As noted above, Rule 82(d) states: “When an action is filed laying venue in the wrong county, the action shall not be dismissed, but the court, on timely motion, shall transfer the action to the court in which it might properly have been filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein.” M.R.C.P. 82(d). Also, Rule 21 provides in part: “Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” M.R.C.P. 21. “Furthermore, this Court is bound to follow the plain and ordinary meanings of the Rules of 14 Civil Procedure.” Veal v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co., 955 So. 2d 843, 845 (Miss. 2007). ¶32. Whether an addition of a party relates back under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for the determination of venue is an issue of first impression for this Court. “In a case of first impression Mississippi Courts look to other jurisdictions in determining the matter.” Sheppard v. Mississippi State Highway Patrol, 693 So. 2d 1326, 1329 (Miss. 1997). ¶33. The Alabama Supreme Court has determined that “‘[l]ater amendments to the complaint to add parties or claims . . . are not [to be] considered in determining whether venue is improper at the commencement of the action.’” Ex parte Hampton Ins. Agency, 85 So. 3d 347, 352 (Ala. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Ex parte Lugo de Vega, 65 So. 3d 886, 892 (Ala. 2010)). In Hampton, Mary Patton filed suit in Hale County against Hampton Insurance Agency and fictitiously named “Defendants A, B, and C.” Id. at 348. Hampton moved to dismiss the suit or transfer, arguing that Hale County constituted an improper venue. Id. at 349. It alleged that Hampton was a sole proprietorship with one office located in Tuscaloosa County. Id. In response, Patton amended her complaint to add additional counts and name Ginger Spencer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company and Ashland General Agency, Inc.—all Hale County defendants. Id. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer “based on its conclusion that venue in Hale County was proper at the time Patton originally filed her action against Hampton.” Id. The defendants petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for mandamus relief, requesting that the court direct the trial court to transfer the case to Tuscaloosa County. Id. at 348. ¶34. Granting the defendants’s petition, the Hampton court first determined that venue was 15 improper when the suit originally was filed against only Hampton. Id. at 350–51. In making this determination, the court noted the governing law: “As this [c]ourt has frequently held, proper venue for an action is determined at the commencement of the action. If venue is not proper at the commencement of an action, then, upon motion of the defendant, the action must be transferred to a court where venue would be proper.” Id. at 351 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). After determining that venue was improper at the time of filing, the court found that the addition of the later-named defendants did not relate back to the commencement date of the action. Id. at 352. One of the Hampton court’s primary reasons for not allowing the amendments to relate back was that Patton added the parties after Hampton had sought to change venue. Id. at 353. Further, the Hampton court found Patton’s claim that she was ignorant of the identity of the new parties “untenable.” Id. ¶35. Much of the Hampton court’s rationale applies directly to the facts at hand. The law that undergirded Hampton is similar to Mississippi law. As noted above, this Court “ha[s] held that ‘proper venue is determined at the time the lawsuit is originally filed, and subsequent dismissal of the defendant upon whom venue is based does not destroy proper venue.’” Austin, 919 So. 2d at 964. ¶36. The claims against UMMC in the second complaint did not arise “out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” Upton disagrees and argues that “it is clear that the claims asserted in the amended pleading arose out of Mr. Upton’s treatment at UMMC, which was described in the original complaint.” The amended complaint, though, added two new defendants (UMMC and 16 Smith) and described new conduct (delay in treatment) that was not mentioned or intimated in the original complaint. ¶37. The amended complaint’s allegations concerning delay of treatment on the part of UMMC do not arise out of any “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” described in the original complaint. In fact, the original complaint’s allegations are quite the opposite. The original complaint cites UMMC’s “numerous procedures and treatments . . . to save Mr. Upton’s hand.” The original complaint also notes that UMMC “promptly and properly” treated Upton’s kidney failure. In contrast, the amended complaint for the first time referenced Smith’s decision to delay treatment and omitted the reference to any “prompt[] and proper[]” treatment by UMMC. While the original complaint partially described Upton’s treatment at UMMC, no allegations, claims or facts were pleaded against UMMC. ¶38. These facts are stronger than those in Hampton, as Upton did not attempt to add UMMC as a fictitious party under Rule 9(h). Clearly, Upton knew of UMMC and UMMC’s treatment before the filing of the original complaint. See Davenport v. Hertz Equip. Rental Corp., 187 So. 3d 194, 202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (“In summary, we find that Davenport failed to prove that he lacked knowledge of Hertz’s identity prior to the filing of his original complaint, but even if he did, he failed the reasonable-diligence requirement to ascertain Hertz’s identity.”) ¶39. Also, the amendment to the complaint does not merely “chang[e] the party against whom a claim is asserted.” See M.R.C.P. 15(c). Upton does not argue that this is the case, and a review of the original complaint shows that UMMC and Smith originally were not 17 included as defendants. All of the claims made in Upton’s original complaint remain against the same parties. The amended complaint simply added parties and claims against those parties. ¶40. Further, a plain-language interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure supports the conclusion that the addition of a party to a suit does not relate back under Rule 15 for the purposes of determining venue. The purpose of Rule 15’s relation-back doctrine, when read in conjunction with all the rules, is not to remedy improper venue where the suit could have been filed in the correct venue in the first place. Upton could have filed his suit in Forrest County, where venue would have been proper against the Forrest County defendants. In fact, given the venue statutes discussed above, Rule 82 is clear that, at the time of filing, the only proper venue for the suit was in Forrest County, as Upton named only the Forrest County defendants.7 ¶41. In addition, Rule 21 governs the addition of parties to a suit and requires permission from the court anytime a party is added to a suit. See Veal, 955 So. 2d at 845 (“Where, as here, the amendment sought is to add new defendants, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 21 is applicable, and requires an order from the court to add a new defendant.”). While we agree with Upton that the appellants have waived any objection under Rule 21 and Veal, this Court is not barred from considering Rule 21 in interpreting this issue of first impression under Rule 15. The fact that Rule 21 requires a court order to add an additional party to the suit lends credence to the interpretation that an amended complaint adding a party under Rule 7 Upton did not rely on the fictitious parties at all in pleading venue. 18 15 does not relate back to the time of filing. Rule 15’s relation-back doctrine is not intended to apply where a new defendant is brought into the suit in an attempt to perfect venue. ¶42. Other than his preferred choice of venue, Upton would have lost no rights by filing his suit against the Forrest County defendants in Forrest County. Moreover, Upton will lose no rights as a result of our conclusion. Upton can pursue the same claims after transfer to Forrest County. ¶43. Last, Upton alleges no mistake before this Court in failing to join UMMC. Instead, Upton ignored settled interpretations of this State’s venue statutes, brought a medical claim and a MTCA claim under the “general venue statute” and—only after the initial filing—attempted to use Rule 15 later to perfect venue. ¶44. As the amendment of UMMC does not relate back to the date of the original filing, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motions to transfer venue.8 Upton filed suit against the Forrest County defendants in Hinds County, an improper venue. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case with instructions for the trial court to transfer the case to Forrest County.9 8 We decline to address FGH’s argument concerning its venue statute as venue was not proper against any defendant in Hinds County. Further, we do not answer the question of whether these claims could have been joined against these defendants had the claims all been raised in the original complaint against the Forrest County and Hinds County defendants, as the issue before us today is appropriately narrower. 9 We also decline to address the issue of severance of the claims against UMMC, as UMMC expressly waived its right to venue in Hinds County, and Upton agreed to the transfer of the entire case if the trial court decided that transfer was merited. “Under Mississippi law, it is a ‘basic premise that venue may be waived.’” Lewis v. Pagel, 2017 WL 2377690, at  (Miss. June 1, 2017) (quoting Belk v. State Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 473 So.2d 447, 451 (Miss. 1985)). Also, Smith was dismissed from the suit by stipulation. 19