Opinion ID: 2610891
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is Uniformity Required?

Text: The Schiavone majority interpreted Rule 15(c) restrictively when it held that the period for commencement of actions equated with the statute of limitations. Justice Stevens, dissenting, argued that the period for commencement to which Rule 15(c) referred should be interpreted to include two components, the time for commencing the action by the filing of a complaint and the time in which the action `against him' must be implemented by the service of process. Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 37, 106 S.Ct. at 2388. In cases such as this, where the added defendant received all the notice required if it had been originally and properly named as a party defendant, we consider Schiavone an unfortunate interpretation of Rule 15(c). A recently proposed amendment to Federal Rule 15(c) confirms our view. See Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (1989). The proposed amendment permits relation back when a party or the name of the party against whom a claim is asserted is changed within the period provided for service of process. The purpose of the federal rule revision is to change the result in Schiavone v. Fortune , ... with respect to the problem of the misnamed defendant. Advisory Committee Note, Preliminary Draft. The Committee noted that the result reached in Schiavone based on the text of the previous rule was inconsistent with the liberal pleading practices secured by Rule 8. Id. We do not know if the amendment will be adopted in its drafted form. Nonetheless, we join the drafters of the amendment in concluding that Schiavone was decided on an overly literal reading of the rule. Even if we were to focus on a literal reading of the rule, we reach the same result. First, the words of this rule (within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him) are not nearly so clear as one might imagine. Several members of the United States Supreme Court and several panels of the circuit courts of appeals have concluded that the proper interpretation of that phrase includes the total time allowed by rule or law for service of summons. See, e.g., Ingram, 585 F.2d at 572; Kirk v. Cronvich, 629 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.1980). As noted, in Arizona, where the legislature explicitly intended that commencement and prosecution of the action be permitted within the limitations period plus the additional year abatement period, such an interpretation of the words is even more compelling. Second, for those who nevertheless may find the words crystal clear, we are not constrained in this case as we are in many others by doctrines of original intent, framers' intent, and the like. We are the framers (or at least the enacters) of Rule 15(c) and are somewhat more free, therefore, to interpret its meaning in line with our intent and the intent of the bar committee that proposed it. ( See supra Section A(1); see also Bauer, supra, 63 NOTRE DAME L.REV. at 720.) The rule was intended to liberalize the relation back doctrine and allow a plaintiff to correct a misnomer problem or add a defendant that was named incorrectly or omitted. It would be foolish indeed to interpret such a rule so narrowly as to allow its use only in those cases in which it was not needed because the statute of limitations had not yet run. A defendant added by amendment is entitled to no better notice than a defendant originally and properly named. We conclude that despite the principle of uniformity, we are not compelled to follow Schiavone. It conflicts with established Arizona law and also appears to conflict with the avowed goals of the drafters of the federal rules. We hold that when a party files a claim before the expiration of the statute of limitations, an amendment adding or changing a party pursuant to Rule 15(c) will relate back if the defendant or counter-defendant is served within the time prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations plus the time allowed for service of process pursuant to Rule 6(f), and if the claim asserted arose out of the same occurrence set forth in the original pleading. Any reasoning to the contrary in Hughes Air Corp. v. Maricopa County Superior Court and Canteen Corp. v. Superior Court is disapproved.