Ronald Rowell v. Jeffrey Stecker
698 F. App'x 693
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 17, 2011 Ronald Rowell’s parked tractor-trailer in a New Jersey warehouse was struck by a vehicle owned by Honey Locust Farms LLC and driven by Jeffrey Stecker; Rowell prepared an employer accident report and logged the other vehicle’s owner and truck number but police were not notified.
- Plaintiffs first sued other parties (Rowell I) in Apr. 2012; discovery later suggested Claudemir Silva was the driver, and Silva located Honey Locust after obtaining Rowell’s accident report.
- Honey Locust produced Stecker’s accident report showing Stecker’s responsibility; plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Rowell I and filed a new suit against Stecker and Honey Locust on July 15, 2014, after the statute of limitations had expired.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; the District Court granted summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued equitable tolling, statutory tolling under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-22(a), and relation-back to the earlier (different) lawsuit; the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Rowell says defendants’ conduct (leaving without ID, failing to report) or other factors justify tolling | Defendants say plaintiffs were not diligent and had identifying info in their own reports | Court: No equitable tolling — plaintiffs lacked reasonable diligence; no evidence of defendant trickery |
| Whether § 2A:14-22(a) tolls limitations (out-of-state defendant/diligent inquiry) | Plaintiffs claim they could not serve after diligent inquiry because defendants were initially unidentified | Defendants say plaintiffs failed to pursue diligent inquiry despite available information | Court: Statute inapplicable — plaintiffs did not make diligent inquiry/effectuate service |
| Whether relation-back to claims in earlier, different lawsuit applies | Plaintiffs assert the new complaint should relate back to Rowell I to save timeliness | Defendants say relation-back only applies within same action/amendment | Court: Relation-back not available across different lawsuits; claim is time-barred |
| Whether substantial compliance doctrine rescues claim | Plaintiffs invoke substantial compliance to avoid technical defeat | Defendants say plaintiffs failed to show lack of prejudice or reasonable excuse | Court: Substantial compliance not shown; doctrine not met for same reasons tolling denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. State, 788 A.2d 867 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002) (lists limited bases for equitable tolling under NJ law)
- Binder v. Price Waterhouse & Co., L.L.P., 923 A.2d 293 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007) (equitable tolling requires reasonable diligence; attorney error not enough)
- D.D. v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 61 A.3d 906 (N.J. 2013) (attorney inattention or ignorance of law not extraordinary for tolling)
- Notte v. Merchs. Mut. Ins. Co., 888 A.2d 464 (N.J. 2006) (discusses NJ relation-back rule for amendments)
- Bailey v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 910 F.2d 406 (7th Cir. 1990) (Rule 15(c) relation-back applies only within same action)