Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Kristine C. Danz
2015 Ind. LEXIS 571
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Jeffrey and Cynthia Miller sued multiple parties alleging defamation, false light, tortious interference, and IIED after a lost job opportunity; they originally named a defendant as "John Doe #8" in a Fourth Amended Complaint.
- John Doe #8 was described as a partner, employee, or agent of law firm Ice Miller, LLP, alleged to have conveyed statements leading to Miller's lost employment opportunity.
- Miller sought leave to substitute Kristine C. Danz for John Doe #8 after the two-year statute of limitations had expired, claiming Danz’s identity was discovered in a 2013 deposition.
- Danz moved for summary judgment, arguing the amendment was time-barred and that the defamation claims failed on the merits; the trial court granted summary judgment for Danz.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether Trial Rule 17(F) permits inserting a John Doe’s true name "at any time," and whether Trial Rule 15(C)’s relation-back and mistake requirement limited Rule 17(F).
- The Court held that Rule 17(F) on its face permits amendment to insert an unknown party’s name at any time, but Miller’s prior knowledge of Danz’s existence/likely identity meant she was not an "unknown person" under Rule 17(F), so the unlimited extension of the statute of limitations did not apply and summary judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trial Rule 15(C)’s relation-back/mistake requirement limits Rule 17(F)’s allowance to insert an unknown party’s name at any time | Miller: T.R. 17(F) permits inserting a John Doe’s true name at any time; T.R. 15(C) should apply to allow relation back when identity is discovered | Danz: Lack of identity is not a "mistake" under T.R. 15(C); T.R. 15(C) does not govern substitution of a previously unknown John Doe | Court: T.R. 15(C) does not supersede or apply to Rule 17(F); the rules address different scenarios (misnomer vs. unknown person) |
| Whether Rule 17(F)’s “at any time” insertion applies when the plaintiff likely knew the defendant’s existence or identity before filing | Miller: He did not know Danz’s identity for certain until deposition; thus Rule 17(F) should allow amendment after limitations expired | Danz: Miller had sufficient knowledge (conversation identifying an Ice Miller lawyer and linking a specific name) before filing; she wasn’t truly "unknown" | Court: Because Miller knew of Danz’s existence and probable identity before suit, Danz was not "unknown" under T.R.17(F); unlimited amendment time does not apply; amendment was time-barred |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the statute of limitations and facts | Miller: Amendment should relate back or be allowed under Rule 17(F) so claims are timely | Danz: Amendment was untimely and claims are barred | Court: Summary judgment affirmed for Danz on statute of limitations grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Alva Elec., Inc. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 7 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- David v. Kleckner, 9 N.E.3d 147 (Ind. 2014) (Trial Rule 56(C) summary judgment standard)
- State v. Holtsclaw, 977 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. 2012) (de novo review of questions of law)
- Crossroads Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Coley, 842 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing misnomer/mistake relation-back from lack of knowledge of a party)
- Baskin v. City of Des Plaines, 138 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 1998) (treating relation-back as applicable only where identity mistake exists)
- Delgado–Brunet v. Clark, 93 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 1996) (same principle on relation-back and identity mistakes)
- Sinks v. Caughey, 890 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguished by the Court; involved different Rule 15(C) application)
- Berns Constr. Co. v. Miller, 491 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (partially disapproved insofar as it conflated Rule 15(C) and Rule 17(F))