Snow v. Warren Power & Machinery, Inc.
32,335
N.M. Ct. App.Dec 17, 2013Background
- On January 20, 2009, Ken Snow was injured at Navajo Refinery when a hose assembly (manufactured by Midwest Hose & Specialty, Inc.) came loose, struck his leg, and the hose was rented to Brininstool Equipment Sales and supplied to Navajo Refinery via Warren CAT.
- Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on August 15, 2011 naming Midwest Hose & Specialty, Gandy, Repcon, and Holly as Defendants.
- An amended complaint was filed on September 8, 2011 to correct a date; a second amended complaint was sought on January 20, 2012 adding Warren CAT and Brininstool.
- The district court granted leave to file the second amended complaint on January 27, 2012, at 4:05 p.m.; the second amended complaint was filed on January 30, 2012 at 10:56 a.m.
- Warren CAT and Brininstool were served with the second amended complaint on February 2 and 6, 2012, respectively, and moved for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations had expired prior to filing.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Warren CAT and Brininstool, concluding the statute of limitations barred the claims; Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second amended complaint relates back under Rule 1-015(C). | Snow argues relation back applies because defendants had notice and identity issues were due to mistake. | Warren CAT/Brininstool contend no adequate notice or mistake-based identity relation back. | Relation back denied; amended claims do not relate back to initial complaint. |
| Whether equitable tolling saves the late amendment. | Equitable tolling should apply from filing to ruling on the motion to amend. | No tolling under NM law; federal authority not controlling; delay not due to extraordinary circumstances or due diligence. | Equitable tolling does not apply; summary judgment stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ole Tires, Inc. v., 1984-NMCA-092 (1984-NMCA-092) (notice and mistaken-identity considerations under Rule 1-015(C))
- Bachicha v. Bachicha, 2001-NMCA-048 (2001-NMCA-048) (notice and due diligence for amended-party cases)
- Romero v. Ole Tires, Inc., 1984-NMCA-092 (1984-NMCA-092) (requirements for relation back under Rule 1-015(C))
- Mayes v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc., 867 F.2d 1172 (8th Cir. 1989) (federal equitable tolling considerations)
- Rademaker v. E.D. Flynn Exp. Co., 17 F.2d 15 (5th Cir. 1927) (tolling where newly added defendant is served within limitations)
- Eaton Corp. v. Appliance Valves Co., 634 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (federal tolling reasoning for amended party claims)
- Slusser v. Vantage Builders, Inc., 2013-NMCA-073 (2013-NMCA-073) (equitable tolling elements and case-by-case assessment)
- Stringer v. Dudoich, 1978-NMSC-071 (1978-NMSC-071) (due diligence requirement in equitable tolling)
- Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., 2006-NMCA-084 (2006-NMCA-084) (statute of limitations policy and tolling considerations)