D.P. Holmes Trucking, LLC v. Butler
2012 Miss. LEXIS 370
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Butler filed a personal-injury action in Copiah County against David Holmes and John Does 1-5 (2006).
- Butler sought to substitute Holmes Trucking, LLC, for Holmes or add Holmes Trucking as a defendant; amendments were allowed to add Holmes Trucking, but Butler substituted Holmes Trucking for Holmes.
- Butler filed a second amended complaint after responsive pleadings, naming both Holmes and Holmes Trucking, and John Does 1-5 remained defendants.
- Holmes Trucking moved to strike or dismiss; circuit court allowed the case to proceed, finding misidentification of the employer a misnomer and no prejudice.
- Holmes Trucking appealed interlocutorily; issues included misnomer, Rule 9(h) substitution, and failure to follow Rule 15 for amendments; ultimately the Supreme Court remanded.
- The court held that misnomer does not apply, allowed first amendment, but found second amendment improper under Rule 15(a); case remanded for corrected pleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misnomer applies here | Butler – misnomer allows correcting party-name errors at any stage if no prejudice. | Holmes Trucking – misnomer doctrine should govern and correct party-name errors. | Misnomer does not apply. |
| Whether first amendment complied with Rule 9(h) and related-back rules | Butler – amendment to substitute/add Holmes Trucking complied with Rule 15 and related-back standards. | Holmes Trucking – amendment bypassed Rule 9(h) substitution and related-back requirements. | First amendment allowed; Rule 9(h) substitution inadequately applied; related-back analysis considered but not dispositive. |
| Whether second amended complaint was properly filed under Rule 15(a) | Butler – second amendment should be permitted given pending related matters. | Holmes Trucking – second amendment required leave of court or permission from opposing party. | Second amended complaint improper; should have been dismissed. |
| Whether the circuit court erred in not dismissing the second amended complaint | Butler – amended pleadings should proceed consistent with the agreed order. | Holmes Trucking – improper pleadings should be dismissed or struck. | Circuit court erred in not dismissing the second amended complaint. |
| Overall disposition of the case | Butler – amendments should be maintained and corrected per orders. | Holmes Trucking – noncompliant amendments should be struck or dismissed. | Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Trucking Servs., Inc. v. Mississippi Sand and Gravel, Inc., 483 So.2d 321 (Miss. 1986) (misnomer change allowed if not prejudicial and not a material change)
- Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 23 So.3d 1080 (Miss. 2009) (distinguishes misnomer from suing wrong party by wrong name; allow correction)
- Veal v. J.P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A., 955 So.2d 843 (Miss. 2007) (Rule 9(h) substitution when true name discovered; cannot misuse for unknown parties)
- Doe v. Mississippi Blood Servs., 704 So.2d 1016 (Miss. 1997) (Rule 9(h) substitution guidance and related-back considerations)
- Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss. 2009) (discusses related-back principles under Rule 15)
- Bedford Health Props., LLC v. Estate of Williams, 946 So.2d 335 (Miss. 2006) (Rule 15(c) related-back considerations and pleading standards)