Michael Haas v. Pettinaro Management LLC
CPU4-17-002181
Del. Ct. Com. Pl.Oct 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Haas slipped on black ice on January 12, 2015 while leaving his workplace and filed an original complaint on December 21, 2016 against Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc.
- After discovering different ownership, Plaintiff and Buccini/Pollin executed a stipulation dismissing Buccini/Pollin with prejudice; Plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint substituting Pettinaro entities on May 5, 2017, but the Clerk's Office refused to accept it under the original docket.
- Plaintiff then filed a new, identical complaint against Pettinaro entities on May 23, 2017 (the Present Complaint); defendants were served July 11, 2017 and moved to dismiss as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations.
- Plaintiff asked the court to (1) treat the Present Complaint as the Amended Complaint the clerk refused to file and (2) relate that May 5, 2017 filing back to the December 21, 2016 original filing under Court of Common Pleas Civ. R. 15(c).
- The court accepted that clerical rejection by the Clerk's Office justified treating the Present Complaint as the attempted Amended Complaint, but held that the Rule 15(c) relation-back requirements (notice and mistake as to identity) were not met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Present Complaint should be deemed the Amended Complaint that counsel attempted to file on May 5, 2017 | The Clerk improperly rejected the Amended Complaint via the File&Serve system; fairness and precedent require substitution | The filing is an original complaint filed after the limitations period and should not be treated as the attempted amendment | Court: Yes — clerical refusal justified deeming the Present Complaint the Amended Complaint (substitution permitted) |
| Whether the Amended Complaint filed May 5, 2017 relates back to the Dec. 21, 2016 original under Rule 15(c) (notice requirement) | Plaintiff contends Pettinaro entities had notice (emails, firm communications) within the Rule 15(c)/Rule 4(j) period and were not prejudiced | Pettinaro argues there was no notice of the lawsuit itself—only notice of a claim or inquiry—and therefore Rule 15(c)(3) not satisfied | Court: No — evidence did not show Pettinaro received notice of the lawsuit (emails showed only a claim or inquiry) |
| Whether the Amended Complaint satisfies Rule 15(c)(3)’s "mistake" prong (mistake as to identity) | Plaintiff asserts he mistakenly sued Buccini/Pollin and intended to sue Pettinaro once he learned correct ownership | Pettinaro argues plaintiff merely chose the wrong defendant and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in identifying the proper party | Court: No — under Delaware precedent a mere choice to sue the wrong party or failure to research is not a qualifying "mistake"; plaintiff did not show intent to include Pettinaro before limitations expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Obio, 360 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1959) (clerk has no discretion to refuse to file papers that are properly presented)
- Mullen v. Alarmsguard of Delmarva, Inc., 625 A.2d 258 (Del. 1993) (notice for relation-back must be notice of the lawsuit, not merely of a claim)
- DiFebo v. Board of Adjustment of New Castle County, 132 A.3d 1154 (Del. 2016) (Delaware requires a true mistake as to identity—mere failure to research is not enough for relation back)
- McClain v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Delaware, Inc., 32 A.3d 989 (Del. 2011) (distinguishes misnomer/misidentification from failure to ascertain proper defendant)
- CCS Inv’rs, LLC v. Brown, 977 A.2d 301 (Del. 2009) (Delaware precedent discussing meaning of "mistake" in relation-back context)
Decision: Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED; the Amended Complaint does not relate back and the claim is time-barred.