Darren Lee v. Airgas - Mid South, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12259
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- In August 2013 Lee (Arkansas) sued VTI and ten John Does after an oxygen tank/ regulator incident in August 2010 blinded him in one eye; VTI claims were later dismissed/ settled.
- Lee moved to substitute Airgas entities for John Does; the district court initially denied amendment for deficient citizenship allegations but later allowed substitution of Airgas Mid-South.
- Airgas LLC responded that it was the surviving entity from a 2012 merger and thus the proper defendant; it moved to dismiss as time-barred.
- The district court dismissed the action, holding Lee’s claims against Airgas LLC were barred by Arkansas’s three-year product-liability statute and the amended pleading did not relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) because Airgas LLC lacked notice within Rule 4(m)’s 120-day period.
- The district court also dismissed the John Does under Rule 21 as nominal/dispensable, ruling Lee failed to establish their citizenship and they did not affect complete diversity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation-back under Rule 15(c) so amended complaint avoids statute of limitations | Lee: amended complaint naming Airgas Mid-South (later identified as Airgas LLC) relates back to August 20, 2013, original filing | Airgas: relation back fails because it did not receive notice within 120 days after the original complaint as required by Rule 15(c)(1)(C) and Rule 4(m) | Held: No relation back — Lee failed to show Airgas LLC had notice within 120 days, so claims are time-barred |
| Tolling/resetting of the 120-day service period | Lee: his December 18, 2013 motion to amend tolled or otherwise affected the 120-day period | Airgas: filing to amend does not restart the Rule 4(m) 120-day notice requirement for relation back to the original complaint | Held: Filing to amend does not toll/reset the Rule 15(c)/4(m) 120-day requirement for relation back; Lee offers no earlier notice evidence |
| Airgas LLC's standing to move / jurisdictional posture | Lee: Airgas LLC lacked standing to move to dismiss because it didn’t expressly admit it assumed liabilities or admit it supplied the tank | Airgas: as the statutory surviving entity it assumed liabilities by merger and may defend alleged liabilities; plaintiff’s pleading-stage proof not required | Held: Airgas LLC has standing; merger statute makes it the proper party and presence of a case or controversy is met at pleading stage |
| John Does and complete diversity | Lee: plaintiff need not allege citizenship of fictitious John Does (invoking removal analogies) | District: Lee failed to establish John Does' citizenship; they were nominal and raised no claims, so they do not defeat diversity and may be dismissed under Rule 21 | Held: John Does were nominal (no claims asserted); their citizenship not established but they do not destroy diversity and were properly dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 776 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 2015) (pleading-stage factual allegations can suffice for standing)
- GMAC Commercial Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2004) (an LLC’s citizenship is that of its members)
- Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (relation-back standards under Rule 15(c))
- Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995) (Rule 15(c) relation-back analysis)
- Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006) (filing an amended complaint does not restart Rule 4(m)’s 120-day clock for relation-back purposes)
- Carmona v. Ross, 376 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (service timing under Rule 4(m) and adding defendants in amended complaints)
- Garvin v. City of Philadelphia, 354 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2003) (newly added defendants must have received notice within 120 days after original filing for Rule 15(c)(1)(C))
- Midwestern Indem. Co. v. Brooks, 779 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 2015) (nominal John Does do not defeat diversity)
- Howell by Goerdt v. Tribune Entm’t Co., 106 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 1997) (complete diversity requirement and treatment of fictitious defendants)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (plaintiff bears burden to allege and prove citizenship for diversity jurisdiction)