81 So. 3d 1217
Ala.2011Background
- TLS petitions for a writ of mandamus to vacate a circuit court order denying its motion to dismiss and to dismiss Anderson's negligence claims as time-barred.
- Anderson was allegedly injured on November 8, 2006; he filed suit November 4, 2008 naming Tate & Lyle PLC and fictitiously named defendants.
- TLP moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on January 5, 2009; Anderson did not respond by the hearing date set for February 16, 2010.
- Anderson amended on August 9, 2010 to substitute TLS for a fictitiously named defendant; the trial court dismissed the action on August 10, 2010 and later entry of judgment occurred.
- TLS moved to dismiss on October 29, 2010 based on the two-year statute of limitations for negligence; the trial court denied the motion on December 1, 2010.
- Court analyzes whether the amended complaint relates back to the original under Rule 9(h), Rule 15(c)(4), and due-diligence requirements; wantonness claims are governed by a different limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson’s negligence claims relate back to the 2008 complaint | Anderson argues amendments relate back under Rule 9(h)/Rule 15(c)(4) due to fictitious-party substitution. | TLS contends the amended pleadings do not relate back because due diligence to identify TLS was lacking. | Relates back denied; negligence claims time-barred. |
| Whether Anderson exercised due diligence to identify the fictitiously named defendant | Anderson's attorney relied on documents provided by Anderson and reviewed materials suggesting Tate & Lyle PLC ownership. | TLS argues due diligence was lacking because discovery or investigation beyond file review was not undertaken. | Due diligence lacking; relation back fails for negligence claims. |
| Whether the two-year limitations period for negligence governs TLS's dismissal | Anderson maintains the failure to identify TLS timely bars the action unless relation back applies. | TLS asserts negligence claims are time-barred without relation back. | Negligence claims barred; two-year period applies. |
| Whether Anderson's wantonness claims are time-barred | Wantonness claims may be governed by a six-year or two-year period depending on capstone rule. | TLS contends limitations applies retroactively to wantonness claims as time-barred. | Wantonness claims timely; not barred by the statute as of the date of decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc., 916 So.2d 594 (Ala.2005) (rules on fictitious-party relation back under Rule 9(h))
- Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 581 (Ala.1999) (fictitious-party relation back doctrine)
- Ex parte FMC Corp., 599 So.2d 592 (Ala.1992) (due diligence standard for fictitious defendants)
- Ex parte Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 7 So.3d 999 (Ala.2008) (discovery as evidence of due diligence)
- Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Ass’n, 74 So.3d 424 (Ala.2011) (lack of due diligence despite informal discovery)
- Crowl v. Kayo Oil Co., 848 So.2d 930 (Ala.2002) (reliance on interrogatories without responses not due diligence)
- Davis v. Mims, 510 So.2d 227 (Ala.1987) (test for due diligence in identifying fictitious party)
- Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681 (Ala.2000) (adequacy of remedy and fictitious-party issues)
- McKenzie v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala.2004) (six-year limitations for wantonness prior to Capstone)
- Ex parte Capstone Bldg. Corp., Ms. 1090966, 2011 (Ala.2011) (Capstone clarifies wantonness limitations; two-year period governs wantonness if accrued before decision date)