White v. Date Trucking, LLC
1:17-cv-01177
| D. Maryland | Feb 21, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Garth White sued Date Trucking, LLC for injuries from an incident on December 19, 2013; case removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Defendant moved to extend the scheduling order by four months (filed Feb 17, 2018); one deadline at issue was defendant’s Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures due Feb 22, 2018.
- Plaintiff opposed the extension; court found the requested four-month extension excessive and asked counsel to propose a three-month extension or show cause by March 2, 2018; motion to shorten response time denied as moot.
- Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint (filed Dec 6, 2017) to add driver Kevin F. Grantland and Kevin F. Grantland, Inc.; Date Trucking opposed and plaintiff did not reply.
- The underlying accident occurred in Maryland, so Maryland substantive law (including its statute of limitations) governs; negligence claims generally have a three-year limitations period.
- Because the three-year limitations period had expired, the court analyzed whether the proposed additions could "relate back" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) and Maryland law; the court found plaintiff’s relation-back showing legally insufficient and denied leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to extend the Scheduling Order (four months) | Extension needed to permit defendant’s neuropsychologist evaluation and other discovery | Four-month extension is excessive; no explanation why specific neuropsychologist or delay is necessary | Court stayed current schedule and ordered parties to propose a three-month extension or show cause by March 2, 2018; denied motion to shorten as moot |
| Whether proposed amendment adding Kevin F. Grantland and his corporation relates back to avoid Maryland statute of limitations bar | Amendment relates back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) because new defendants had notice and would not be prejudiced; plaintiff alleged this conclusorily | Addition is untimely; Maryland law generally disallows adding new parties after limitations period except for name-corrections; no factual showing of notice or mistake | Court denied leave to amend: plaintiff failed to show the Rule 15(c) requirements (notice within Rule 4(m) period and that new defendants knew they would have been sued but for a mistake) and Maryland law precludes adding new parties post-limitations absent name-correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) focuses on what the prospective defendant knew or should have known during the Rule 4(m) period)
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) (relation-back requires adequate notice within the limitations period and no prejudice to new defendant)
- Hansberger v. Smith, 229 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) (Maryland law bars adding new defendants after limitations period except to correct a name)
- Poole v. Coakley & Williams Constr., Inc., 423 Md. 91 (Md. 2011) (discussing limits on adding new parties after limitations period under Maryland law)