Poole v. General Motors Corp., 144 So. 3d 236

Background

Plaintiff Gerardo Poole sued for injuries from an April 11, 2007 auto accident; complaint filed April 6, 2009 (within two-year limitations). Complaint named Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) and fictitiously named defendants.
Poole moved on June 10, 2009 (after the limitations period) to substitute General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GM Canada) for fictitious defendants, alleging he first discovered GM Canada as the manufacturer that day; amendment filed June 15, 2009.
GM Canada answered and asserted statute-of-limitations defense, then moved for summary judgment arguing the substitution did not relate back under fictitious-party practice because Poole lacked due diligence.
Trial court denied GM Canada’s motion; GM Canada petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct entry of summary judgment.
Alabama Supreme Court majority granted the writ, holding Poole failed to act with due diligence because the vehicle bore a legally required, legible manufacturer label naming GM Canada that Poole (or his agents) could have inspected before filing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment substituting GM Canada relates back under fictitious-party Rule 9(h)/15(c) so as to avoid statute-of-limitations bar	Poole: counsel diligently investigated; vehicle was not inspected by current counsel because prior counsel or others had possession; identity discovered only June 10, 2009	GM Canada: vehicle bore a conspicuous, legally required label naming GM Canada; plaintiff had (or his agents had) access and thus should have discovered identity before filing	Held: No relation back — Poole lacked due diligence; summary judgment for GM Canada directed via mandamus
Whether plaintiff’s reliance on MLC’s answer justified delay in identifying GM Canada	Poole: MLC’s answer reasonably led counsel to believe MLC was the manufacturer	GM Canada: MLC’s answer admitted only partial involvement and did not foreclose other manufacturers; it was not misleading	Held: MLC’s answer did not justify failure to inspect; reliance insufficient to excuse lack of diligence
Whether lack of physical possession of vehicle excuses failure to inspect label	Poole: current counsel lacked possession; inspection was not possible	GM Canada: even if a third party held the vehicle, due diligence required attempts to inspect or seek court-ordered inspection	Held: Lack of possession did not excuse failure where vehicle (and label) was available to plaintiff’s agents; plaintiff should have acted to inspect
Appropriateness of mandamus review of trial court summary-judgment denial	GM Canada: case fits narrow fictitious-party/relation-back exception allowing mandamus review	Poole: (and dissent) mandamus is extraordinary; disputed facts and alternative remedy (appeal) weigh against mandamus	Held: Majority held mandamus appropriate because undisputed evidence showed lack of due diligence; dissent argued mandamus improper due to factual disputes and failure to satisfy writ elements

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 74 So.3d 424 (Ala. 2011) (fictitious‑party relation‑back requires plaintiff act with due diligence to identify defendant)
Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1999) (mandamus may issue when undisputed evidence shows plaintiff failed to act with due diligence)
Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681 (Ala. 2000) (narrow fictitious‑party exception to the usual rule against mandamus review of summary‑judgment denials)
Jones v. Resorcon, Inc., 604 So.2d 370 (Ala. 1992) (plaintiff must pursue inspection or court‑ordered inspection when identifying marks are on product)
Fulmer v. Clark Equip. Co., 654 So.2d 45 (Ala. 1995) (failure to use clearly available identifying information defeats relation back)
Ex parte Nationwide Ins. Co., 991 So.2d 1287 (Ala. 2008) (relation back denied where plaintiff could have discovered insurer’s identity through available documents)
Ex parte Nail, 111 So.3d 125 (Ala. 2012) (defines due diligence as ordinary diligence; contrasts cases requiring extensive detective work)