Preston v. Kindred Hospitals West, L.L.C.
249 P.3d 771
Ariz.2011Background
- Personal representatives filed wrongful death, negligence, and elder abuse claims on behalf of the Estate of William Everett Preston against Kindred Hospitals West, LLC and related entities.
- Preston had filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy pre-trial; after death, the case proceeded in state court during the bankruptcy proceeding, which was later converted to Chapter 7.
- Kindred moved to dismiss arguing the bankruptcy trustee, not the personal representatives, was the proper real party in interest.
- Superior Court dismissed, finding no understandable mistake or difficulty in identifying the proper party, thus Rule 17(a) did not permit substitution.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding Rule 17(a) permits substitution or joinder without showing an understandable mistake or difficulty.
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to interpret Rule 17(a) and held that Rule 17(a) does not require a showing of understandable mistake or difficulty to substitute the real party in interest and that substitution has the same effect as if commenced in the real party’s name.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 17(a) require showing an understandable mistake or difficulty identifying the real party? | Preston argues rule allows ratification without such showing. | Kindred contends rule requires mistake/difficulty. | No; Rule 17(a) is unambiguous and does not require such showing. |
| May the real party in interest be substituted for an improperly named plaintiff with identical claims? | Yes, liberal substitution should be allowed. | Substitution should be limited by the rule and discretion. | Substitution is permitted; substitution has the same effect as if commenced in the real party’s name. |
| Relation back and interplay with Rule 15(c) or related amendments? | Rule 17(a) substitution should be freely permitted; related back should be allowed. | Relation back/Rule 15(c) is not controlling here; concerns about abuse exist. | Rule 17(a) substitution governs with relation-back effect; trial court may manage potential abuse via Rule 15(a) discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wieburg v. GTE Sw. Inc., 272 F.3d 302 (5th Cir.2001) (liberal view on substitution under Rule 17(a) emphasizing prevent forfeiture)
- Esposito v. United States, 368 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir.2004) (cautions against over-emphasis on mistake in Rule 17(a))
- Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11 (2d Cir.1997) (reaffirmed liberal substitution under Rule 17(a))