McCarthy v. OMEGA PSI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.
954 N.E.2d 834
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- McCarthy sues Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. and Tenth District for defamation per se.
- Fraternity is organized with districts; Sigma Omega chapter located in Chicago.
- Plaintiff was active in the Tenth District; election for Tenth District representative occurred April 11, 2003.
- Allegations tied to a 2001 hazing controversy and a 2003 videotape showing alleged illegal intake; plaintiff appeared on the videotape.
- Plaintiff’s initial and multiple amended complaints added Rainey, Spellers, Pointer, and later Omega; statute-of-limitations defenses raised.
- Trial court ultimately ruled in plaintiff’s favor on the merits, but the appellate court reverses on the relation-back issue under 2-616(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendments relate back under 2-616(d). | Plaintiff contends he learned new facts at trial showing identity; mistake justifies relation back. | Defendants contend no mistaken identity; original party identification remained fixed. | No relation back; 2-616(d) inapplicable. |
| Whether added defendants are barred by the statute of limitations. | Plaintiff asserts relation back salvages claims against new defendants. | Statute of limitations bars claims against new defendants. | Barred by statute of limitations. |
| Whether misrepresentation or concealment prevented learning identity, supporting relation back. | Pointer concealed defendants’ involvement; concealment justifies relation back. | No concealment; information disclosed; no mistake in identity. | No concealment; no mistake in identity. |
| What is the ultimate effect of 2-616(d) given the record? | Intended to sue Pointer and others for defamation; trial evidence showed broader liability. | Amendments fail to meet 2-616(d) requirements (mistake in identity). | 4th/5th amendments not related back; judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. Pervan, 356 Ill.App.3d 32 (2005) (mistake in identity analysis for relation back under 2-616(d))
- Fassero v. Turigliatto, 349 Ill.App.3d 368 (2004) (intent to sue driver; classic mistaken identity)
- Polites v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass'n, 361 Ill.App.3d 76 (2005) (intent to sue owner; mistaken identity)
- Porter v. Decatur Mem. Hosp., 227 Ill.2d 343 (2008) (statute of limitations raised via 2-619; de novo review)