Court Opinion

ID: 9594310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:28:52.261142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:44.023013
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting on Denial of Petition for Rehearing:
Although I initially concurred in the majority opinion, upon reflection I now dissent from the denial of rehearing and indicate that, had rehearing been granted, I would have voted against retroactive application of the new rule, crafted in the initial majority opinion, to the parties in this case.
Our opinion holds that Watts is not entitled to the relation back exception that was developed in Chacon v. Sperry Corp., 111 Idaho 270, 723 P.2d 814 (1986), because of a “fatal flaw” in Watts’ initial pleading. That “fatal flaw” is the absence of any language in Watts’ initial complaint identifying “Sargenti Corporation” as a party “whose true name is unknown.” The absence of those five words is a “fatal flaw” according to our opinion because I.R.C.P. 10(a)(4) requires use of that specific language. I.R.C.P. 10(a)(4) provides:
*349[w]hen a party does not know the name of the adverse party, that fact may be stated in the pleadings and the adverse party designated by any name and the words “whose true name is unknown,” and when the true name is discovered the pleading must be amended accordingly.
Although our opinion acknowledges that I.R.C.P. 10(a)(4) uses the permissive term “may,” we nevertheless conclude that the language is to be interpreted as a mandatory-“shall” in order to gain the benefit of the Chacon relation back exception. The rationale that we offer for that construction is that it prevents parties from calling “an adverse party any name it chooses, without a designation that the name is fictitious.” It is a debatable point whether that rationale truly affords any additional protection to defendants in light of the actual notice requirement for post-Chacon remittitur plaintiffs and the rigorous three-part test that must be satisfied by a plaintiff, such as Watts, in order to invoke the pre-Chacon remittitur exception. However, I am reluctantly willing to accept that it is a reasonable requirement to impose on future litigants who, by virtue of today’s opinion, have notice of this Court’s continued limiting construction of the rule. What I now find unacceptable, despite my initial vote to the contrary, is the application of this new rule of technical pleading to the parties in this case.
Watts did not choose just “any” fictitious name to describe the actual corporate defendant or defendants. She used “Sargenti Corporation” in an attempt to approximate the name of the manufacturer of the product that she believed had injured her. Watts amended her complaint to name the actual corporate defendants in place of the fictitious “Sargenti Corporation” as soon as their true identities became known to her. The defendants defended against her action for several years before filing a motion for summary judgment claiming that her initial failure to utilize the words “whose true name is unknown” required dismissal of the ease against them.
In light of this procedural history, our new rule should not be applied to Watts. In Chacon we acknowledged that the actual notice requirement should only be given prospective effect because we were “mindful of the established practice” of allowing amendment and relation back upon showing due diligence and because the plaintiff had shown “substantial reliance upon the previously existing practice.” Chacon, 111 Idaho at 275, 723 P.2d at 819. Watts substantially relied on the plain language of I.R.C.P. 10(a)(4). The corporate defendants here have not established any prejudice from her failure to invoke five “magic words.” Therefore, I believe we should be at least as mindful of her entirely reasonable reliance on the permissive language of I.R.C.P. 10(a)(4) as we were of the Chacon plaintiffs belief that I.R.C.P. 15(c)’s actual notice requirement was inapplicable. Such mindfulness would require that we only apply our new rule prospectively and reverse the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Accordingly, I dissent from the denial of rehearing.