Templeton v. KyKenKee, Inc.
182 So. 3d 510
| Ala. | 2015Background
- Dec. 31, 2010: Casimiro Deleon Ixcoy died after being struck by a log at a sawmill; the debarker machine was manufactured by Nicholson.
- Templeton (administrator) filed a wrongful-death complaint on Dec. 28, 2012 naming several defendants and using fictitious names for unknown parties.
- On Jan. 2, 2013 (two days after the 2-year statute of limitations), Templeton amended to substitute Nicholson for a fictitious defendant.
- Nicholson moved for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations barred the claim because the substitution did not relate back; the trial court denied the motion.
- Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus, holding Templeton failed to exercise due diligence to discover Nicholson’s identity from publicly available sources (sheriff’s incident report with photos showing a “NICHOLSON” label and a Dept. of Labor decision), so the amendment could not relate back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amendment substituting Nicholson for a fictitious defendant relates back to the original complaint under Rule 9(h)/15(c) | Templeton argued he was ignorant of Nicholson’s identity and exercised due diligence; he lacked possession of the incident report, the DOL decision was unsigned/nonfinal, and access to inspect the machine was denied | Nicholson argued Templeton should have discovered its identity before filing because publicly available documents (incident report photos and DOL decision) identified Nicholson; substitution filed after limitations expired and thus time-barred | Amendment did not relate back: Templeton failed to exercise due diligence in discovering Nicholson’s identity, so statute of limitations bars the claim; mandamus directs trial court to grant summary judgment for Nicholson |
| Whether denial of site access excuses failure to inspect the product | Templeton said denied access prevented inspection and discovery of manufacturer | Nicholson said product labeling and public reports made the identity readily discoverable; even if access denied, plaintiff should have sought court-ordered inspection | Denial of access did not excuse due diligence failure; plaintiff could have sought court-ordered inspection and had other public sources available |
| Whether public, nonfinal or unsigned administrative materials can supply notice of a manufacturer’s identity | Templeton argued DOL decision was unsigned/nonfinal and insufficient | Nicholson argued the DOL decision identified Nicholson and was publicly available | Court treated the DOL decision as a source that, together with the incident report, would have led to discovery with due diligence |
| Appropriateness of mandamus review of denial of summary judgment in fictitious-party/relation-back context | Templeton implied ordinary appeal adequate | Nicholson sought mandamus after trial court denied summary judgment | Court held mandamus appropriate in this narrow class of relation-back cases and granted relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Ass’n, 74 So.3d 424 (Ala. 2011) (due-diligence requirement for relation back when fictitious-party practice is used)
- Ex parte General Motors of Canada Ltd., 144 So.3d 236 (Ala. 2013) (plaintiff’s duty to inspect product and exercise due diligence to learn manufacturer identity)
- Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1999) (relation-back and mandamus in fictitious-party context)
- Crowl v. Kayo Oil Co., 848 So.2d 930 (Ala. 2002) (public records could have revealed defendant’s identity; failure to investigate is lack of due diligence)
- Fulmer v. Clark Equip. Co., 654 So.2d 45 (Ala. 1995) (inspection/manufacturer identification on equipment imposes duty to discover identity)
- Jones v. Resorcon, Inc., 604 So.2d 370 (Ala. 1992) (if access denied, due diligence may require seeking court-ordered inspection)
- Ex parte Ismail, 78 So.3d 399 (Ala. 2011) (plaintiff must exercise due diligence both before and after filing to identify fictitious parties)