Court Opinion

ID: 9471628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:37:19.919206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:30.312138
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent because I find the record too scanty to conclude, as does the majority, that the required notice of the filing of the action was given.
I gather from the rather incomplete record that RCCL, A/S owns the ship involved in this case. RCCL, Inc. is a separate corporation which books cruises on this and other ships. Apparently, Port Cruise Services, Inc. is an independent corporation, but its stationery suggests that it acts as some type of a general operating agent for RCCL, A/S and its ships. Caribbean Marine Associates, Inc. (CMA) is an independent corporation and a subsidiary of Shipowners Claims Bureau, Inc. It was apparently acting in this instance as a claims agent for RCCL, Inc.
On this record, I cannot agree that notice to an employee of CMA allows us to impute notice of the filing of the action to RCCL, Inc., and that imputed notice to RCCL, Inc. allows us to impute notice to RCCL, A/S. Yet, only through this circuitous imputation *1402may RCCL, A/S become a new party through substitution by amendment for RCCL, Inc.
Korn gave RCCL, Inc. direct notice of the filing of his suit against it, but only after the applicable limitation period had expired. We have adopted the position that a new party brought in by amendment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) must have received a sufficient notice of the lawsuit before the limitation period expired. See Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d 893, 898 & n. 8 (9th Cir.1983); cf. Hart v. Bechtel Corp., 90 F.R.D. 104, 106 (D.Ariz.1981).
A different rule applies when the plaintiff merely amends the complaint to state the proper name of a defendant. A different rule also applies to the party originally named in the complaint. Thus, Korn had no obligation to give any notice to RCCL, Inc. until a reasonable time after filing his complaint, see 2 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 3.07 (2d ed. 1982); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) (new rule of 120 days), even if the notice would be received after the expiration of the limitation period, see generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 3; Cal.Civ.Pro.Code § 411.10 (West 1973); cf. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 751-52, 100 S.Ct. 1978, 1985-86, 64 L.Ed.2d 659 (1980). However, we will not allow him the reasonable time of service after the expiration of the limitation period to give notice to a new party he seeks to bring in under rule 15(c). See Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d at 898 & n. 8; accord, e.g., Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981). The majority agrees, but finds an imputed notice to RCCL, A/S of the filing of this action.
Before the limitation period expired, Korn wrote RCCL, Inc. about his injury. The majority correctly states this would not constitute notice of the filing of a lawsuit. See Craig v. United States, 413 F.2d 854, 857 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 987, 90 S.Ct. 483, 24 L.Ed.2d 451 (1969). This was the only time Korn dealt directly with RCCL, Inc. until he served the company after the limitation period expired.
Korn then corresponded with CMA, the claims representative for RCCL, Inc. CMA regularly sent copies of its correspondence about Korn to Port Cruise Services, Inc., apparently the operating agent for RCCL, A/S. Korn never wrote CMA advising that he had filed a suit, and there was no letter from CMA to that effect. Nothing in the record indicates that Port Cruise Services, Inc. received anything from CMA other than copies of correspondence; the record therefore indicates Port Cruise Services, Inc. did not receive any notice that Korn filed suit.
Korn’s attorney did have an associate telephone CMA after Korn filed suit. The associate did not speak to the claims representative handling the Korn claim. She did speak to someone, told him Korn had filed suit, and asked him if RCCL, Inc. was the proper defendant. That someone told her RCCL, Inc. was the proper defendant because it operated in the United States and RCCL, A/S operated in Norway. Nothing in the record indicates that this person gave the information to the agent handling the Korn claim.
At best, the record indicates that CMA acted as RCCL, Inc.’s limited agent for claims-handling purposes. Nothing in the record shows that CMA acted as agent for RCCL, Inc. for any purposes beyond negotiating Korn’s claim. The record also does not indicate CMA ever acted as agent for RCCL, A/S.
Despite the absence in the record of any basis for attributing notice to RCCL, A/S, before the limitation period expired, that Korn had filed suit, the majority finds a “sufficient community of interest” to impute such knowledge. We are left to guess what this means. I find the record insufficient to breathe life into this speculation. Nor has the majority pointed to evidence in the record to impute such notice among independent, though business-related, corporations.
Because of the lack in the record of any sufficient notice, actual or imputed, I conclude that the court did not abuse its discre*1403tion in denying Korn’s rule 15(c) motion, and I would affirm.