D.P. Holmes Trucking, LLC v. Butler
| Docket Number: | 2011-IA-00953-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-02-2012 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Doctrine of misnomer - M.R.C.P. 15 - Amendment of complaints - M.R.C.P. 9(h) - Relation back - M.R.C.P. 4(h) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Kitchens, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2011 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: The Appellee filed a second amended complaint without leave of court and the circuit court denied the Appellant's motion to dismiss. Case Number: 2006-0118 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | D.P. Holmes Trucking, LLC |
JAMES SETH MCCOY
LANNY R. PACE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Lester Butler | CARROLL RHODES | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Doctrine of misnomer - M.R.C.P. 15 - Amendment of complaints - M.R.C.P. 9(h) - Relation back - M.R.C.P. 4(h) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2006, Lester Butler filed a personal-injury action in the Copiah County Circuit Court against David Holmes and John Does 1-5. Later, Butler moved to amend his complaint to substitute a trucking company, D.P. Holmes Trucking, LLC, for Holmes or, in the alternative, to be allowed to file an amended complaint to add Holmes Trucking as a defendant. Both the circuit court and Holmes permitted Butler to amend his original complaint to add Holmes Trucking as a defendant; however, when filed, Butler had substituted Holmes Trucking for Holmes. After a responsive pleading had been filed, Butler filed a second amended complaint without leave of court and without permission of Holmes Trucking, identifying both Holmes and Holmes Trucking as defendants. Holmes Trucking responded with a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, but the circuit court allowed Butler to proceed. Holmes Trucking filed notice of interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Misnomer Although the Supreme Court has long recognized the doctrine of misnomer, it does not apply here. Butler sued one defendant with the correct name and then sought to substitute a completely different defendant. Butler initially filed a complaint against Holmes and John Does 1-5, rather than filing his complaint against Holmes Trucking – the true defendant. Initially, Butler followed the procedure under M.R.C.P. 15 to substitute or amend his pleadings to name Holmes Trucking. And as long as a party follows the procedures outlined in Rule 15, there is no reason why a plaintiff cannot substitute the proper name of the defendant when the plaintiff has learned that he has sued a wrongly named party. Misnomer would not apply in this case. Butler did not simply misname the defendant; rather, he sued a person he believed to be responsible for the driver involved in the accident when he should have sued a different party. Issue 2: Amendment of complaints The amendment process outlined in M.R.C.P. 15 encompasses changing parties, and that process also includes adding parties. When a party moves to amend his pleadings, leave to do so should be freely given when justice so requires. Holmes Trucking does not argue that Butler’s first amended complaint fails for following the procedures outlined in Rule 15, nor could it. Instead, Holmes Trucking argues that Butler’s amendment was improper because it substituted Holmes Trucking for Holmes instead of adding Holmes, as the Agreed Order allowed, and failed to substitute Holmes Trucking in the place of a John Doe defendant – an M.R.C.P. 9(h) argument. The circuit court, after having reviewed Butler’s motion, clearly directed Butler to add Holmes Trucking rather than substitute it in place of Holmes or a John Doe defendant. To substitute Holmes Trucking for Holmes, Butler was required to comply with Rule 9(h). A Rule 9(h) substitution does not change the name of a party against who a claim is asserted; rather, it provides the true name of the party already in the litigation. A plaintiff cannot use Rule 9(h) as a means to reserve a spot for those unknown individuals or entities he may discover later; rather, Rule 9(h) is to be used to clearly identify a party or entity that the plaintiff is aware of but cannot name. Butler was aware that an employer existed; however, he had named the wrong employer, naming Holmes individually rather than the entity of Holmes Trucking. When attempting to correct that mistake, he failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 9(h) by substituting one of the five John Does with Holmes Trucking. For a claim to relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c) against a new party, the new claim must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint. Additionally, the newly added party must have had notice of the suit within 120 days from the filing of the original complaint. However, “notice” does not mean service of process. In order for the amended pleading to relate back within the 120-day requirement to effect service under M.R.C.P. 4(h), the newly named party must have 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 have known 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. Holmes Trucking was added to this suit after the 120 days for effecting service had passed. Yet, the claims included in the first amended complaint stem from the same conduct, transaction, and occurrence as identified in the original complaint. Additionally, Holmes Trucking was aware of the pending litigation and is represented by the same law firm as Holmes. Thus, Holmes Trucking cannot argue that it did not know or that it should not have had reason to know of Butler’s pending litigation within 120 days of Butler’s original complaint, and the circuit court did not err in allowing Butler to amend his complaint. Rule 15(a) instructs a party to seek leave of the court or permission from the opposing party when seeking to amend the pleadings if a responsive pleading has been filed. Holmes Trucking had filed a responsive pleading before the second amended complaint had been filed, and thus, leave of court or permission from Holmes Trucking was required. Because Butler failed to seek leave of court or permission from Holmes Trucking, his second amended complaint is improper, and therefore, the circuit court should have dismissed the improper complaint. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
