Pynes v. Jackson Hospital, 127 So. 3d 1160

NHM petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing entry of summary judgment in its favor on the wrongful-death claim, arguing §6-5-410 bars the action.
Houston Earl Pynes died March 9, 2007 while at NHM; the action was filed March 6, 2009 against Jackson Hospital, Dr. Patel, and fictitious parties A/B.
Pynes filed an amended complaint May 8, 2009; second amended complaint on January 6, 2010 substituted NHM for a fictitiously named defendant.
NHM moved to dismiss the second amended complaint as time-barred; a later third amended complaint asserted new NHM claims.
Discovery showed Pynes knew of NHM’s existence and role only through various references in records and communications; questions remained about whether due diligence to identify NHM was adequate.
Trial court denied NHM’s summary-judgment motion on November 8, 2011; NHM sought mandamus this November 22, 2011, and this Court granted relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition for mandamus was timely filed.	Pynes argued Rule 54(b) certification was effective; NHM appealed late or base not timely.	NHM’s petition timely under Rule 54(b) and within 42 days after denial of summary judgment.	Timely; Rule 54(b) certification was ineffective here and did not bar later mandamus.
Whether second amended complaint relates back to toll the statute of limitations.	Pynes argues Rule 9(h)/Rule 15(c)(4) allow substitution of NHM for fictitious party to relate back.	Pynes failed to adequately describe the fictitious party, show ignorance of NHM, or exercise due diligence.	Relating back failed; second amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint.
Whether Pynes had adequately described NHM and acted with due diligence under Rule 9(h)/15(c)(4).	Pynes had sufficiently described NHM’s role and identity through original pleadings and discovery.	Pynes did not adequately describe NHM; discovery showed lack of due diligence to discover NHM’s true identity.	Not adequately described; no due diligence; claims not tolled.
Whether the wrongful-death claim against NHM was time-barred by §6-5-410.	Two-year period began March 9, 2007; original filing March 6, 2009 was timely; relation back tolled period.	Without relation back, no tolling; action barred by statute of limitations.	Time-barred; NHM entitled to summary judgment.

Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531 (Ala.1999) (relation-back in fictitious-party cases; merits reviewed to determine tolling)
Ex parte Stover, 663 So.2d 948 (Ala.1995) (reviewing merits of denial of summary judgment in fictitious-party context)
Ex parte FMC Corp., 599 So.2d 592 (Ala.1992) (due diligence and relation-back in fictitious-party amendments)
Ex parte Klemawesch, 549 So.2d 62 (Ala.1989) (writ directing entry of judgment when relation-back applies)
Ex parte Tate & Lyle Sucralose, Inc., 81 So.3d 1217 (Ala.2011) (test for due diligence and ignorance in fictitious-party context)
Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Ass’n, 74 So.3d 424 (Ala.2011) (due diligence and discovery in identifying fictitious defendants)
Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681 (Ala.2000) (relation back under Rule 15(c) after fictitious naming)
Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595 (Ala.2003) (mandamus standards and extraordinary relief)
Johnson v. Brookwood Med. Ctr., 946 So.2d 849 (Ala.2006) (two-year wrongful-death limitations under §6-5-410)