Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Kristine C. Danz
27 N.E.3d 774
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jeffrey M. Miller was president/CEO of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana (JACI) during a collaborative culinary-school project funded in part by a $2M grant from CICF; construction halted after CICF stopped paying invoices amid concerns about fund handling.
- In early 2010 Kristine Danz (Ice Miller partner) learned from her then‑husband (a JACI board chair) of an expected audit and concerns about Miller’s handling of project funds.
- Danz told Sarah Cotterill (Ice Miller associate and spouse of the Mayor’s Chief of Staff) of those concerns; Cotterill relayed the information to her husband, who then declined to hire Miller as Senior Policy Advisor.
- The Millers sued in March 2010 (multiple causes including defamation, false light, tortious interference); a John Doe #8 was added in a 2012 amendment.
- In February 2013 the Millers substituted Danz for John Doe #8; Danz moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were time‑barred under the two‑year statute of limitations and the post‑limit substitution did not relate back under Ind. Trial Rules 15(C) and 17(F).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Danz; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the Fifth Amended Complaint naming Danz did not relate back because the Millers lacked the requisite “mistake” under T.R. 15(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether T.R. 17(F)’s "at any time" language permits naming a previously unknown party after the statute of limitations expires | 17(F) allows insertion of the true name at any time; substitution of Danz for John Doe #8 was therefore permissible | 17(F) does not avoid the statute of limitations; relation back must be shown under T.R. 15(C) | Court: 17(F) permits naming “at any time,” but that does not by itself avoid limitations—T.R.15(C) governs relation back when SOL has run |
| Whether the Fifth Amended Complaint relates back under T.R. 15(C) (notification/mistake requirements) | Millers: relation back satisfied because Danz had constructive notice and therefore would not be prejudiced; insertion was effectively a discovery, not a new claim | Danz: relation back failed—Millers lacked a “mistake” as required by T.R.15(C)(3); they simply lacked knowledge of her identity | Court: No relation back—the Millers did not meet the T.R. 15(C) “mistake” requirement (they lacked knowledge, not a mistake), so amendment was time‑barred |
| Whether lack of defendant identity qualifies as a “mistake” under T.R. 15(C) | Millers: lack of identity can be a mistake; T.R.15(C) should be read to allow relation back where plaintiff lacked knowledge of a party | Danz: lack of knowledge is not a T.R.15(C) mistake; relation back requires the kind of identity/misnomer mistake contemplated by the rule | Court: Majority: lack of knowledge does not satisfy 15(C)’s mistake requirement; amendment fails. Concurring opinions questioned or narrowed this view but concurred in result on facts |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Millers: substitution allowed; claims should proceed on merits | Danz: claims time‑barred because amendment naming her came after the two‑year SOL and did not relate back | Court: Summary judgment affirmed because Fifth Amended Complaint was filed after SOL and did not relate back under T.R.15(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- Berns Constr. Co., Inc. v. Miller, 491 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (discusses limits on adding new defendants post‑statute of limitations and interaction with trial rules)
- Crossroads Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Coley, 842 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (interpreting T.R.15(C) with guidance from federal decisions on relation back)
- Sinks v. Caughey, 890 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (John Doe pleading; court assessed relation back under T.R.15(C))
- Porter Cnty. Sheriff Dep't v. Guzorek, 857 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. 2006) (discusses balance between merits and statutes of limitation)
- Havens v. Ritchey, 582 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. 1991) (policy rationale for statutes of limitation)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (U.S. Supreme Court: focus for relation‑back inquiry is the putative defendant’s knowledge, not the plaintiff’s)