Richard Mack v. Cable Equipment Services INC.
W2020-00862-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 9, 2022Background
- In 2010 an incident at the Macks’ home led to a lawsuit originally filed in 2011; the Macks took a voluntary nonsuit in 2013 and refiled in 2014.
- In 2018 the Macks filed an amended complaint adding Cable Equipment Services, Inc. and Chuck and Marilyn Appeldoorn as new defendants, alleging an ongoing conspiracy and related torts dating to 2010.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) as time-barred and argued the amendment did not relate back under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03.
- The trial court orally granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018; before a written order issued, the Macks filed a notice of nonsuit as to two defendants on September 5, 2018.
- The trial court nonetheless entered a written order (Sept. 14, 2018) granting dismissal with prejudice, finding the nonsuit was not effective to divest jurisdiction at filing and that the amended claims failed the relation-back/statute-of-limitations test; the court’s dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of filing a notice of nonsuit on trial-court jurisdiction | Filing the notice instantly effected dismissal and divested the court of subject-matter jurisdiction except to enter a ministerial confirmation order | The court retains jurisdiction until it enters the written order of dismissal; the notice alone is not dispositive | Filing a notice of nonsuit does not instantly divest the court; the court retained jurisdiction and its later dismissal order was not void |
| Reliance on facts beyond the four corners on a Rule 12.02(6) motion | The trial court relied on facts not pled in the amended complaint, so dismissal was reversible error | The court may consider prior filings, matters of public record, and relation-back elements without converting to summary judgment; plaintiffs failed to request conversion | No reversible error: court did not impermissibly rely on extraneous facts and plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show relation back |
| Relation back (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03) and statute of limitations | The amended pleading alleged an ongoing conspiracy (no ascertainable last overt act) or otherwise should relate back to the earlier pleadings | The amended claims are time-barred; amendment raises new theory, defendants lacked timely notice and could not be charged with a mistake of identity; permitting amendment would prejudice defendants | The amended claims did not relate back: plaintiffs failed to show timely notice, mistake as to identity, or absence of prejudice; claims were time-barred and dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822 (Tenn. 2005) (explains the Rule 15.03 relation-back test and its two-pronged requirements)
- Floyd v. Rentrop, 675 S.W.2d 165 (Tenn. 1984) (articulates the three requirements for relation back when adding parties)
- Autin v. Goetz, 524 S.W.3d 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (a notice of nonsuit does not effectuate dismissal instantaneously; court order required)
- Purswani v. Purswani, 585 S.W.3d 907 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (Rule 41.01 amendment requires a court-signed order before a voluntary nonsuit takes effect)
- Rainey Bros. Constr. Co. v. Memphis & Shelby County Bd. of Adjustment, 821 S.W.2d 938 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (second prong of Rule 15.03 requires a mistake as to identity, not mere omission)
- Lease v. Tipton, 722 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. 1986) (failure to sue a potentially liable party is not necessarily a mistake of identity under Rule 15.03)
- Smith v. Southeastern Props. Ltd., 776 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (plaintiff bears burden to show relation-back mistake)