Williams v. Lynch, 741 S.E.2d 373

Williams filed original complaint (Apr 5, 2007) alleging negligence against Ruff and claims against First Citizens related to an impounded closing proceeds; proceeds were misdirected through a power-of-attorney maneuver and subsequent check negotiations.
Williams voluntarily dismissed the first complaint without prejudice on May 5, 2009 and filed a second complaint against the same defendants (excluding some plaintiffs).
Second complaint generally restated facts; it added a breach of contract and conversion claims against Ruff and a conversion claim against First Citizens, but included different relief requests than the first complaint.
Rule 41(a)(1) relation back and tolling issues arose, with governing precedent requiring that relation-back apply only to claims included in the first complaint.
Trial court granted motions to dismiss for statute of limitations on Aug 26, 2010 for First Citizens and Ruff; Williams appealed.
Court held: relation-back does not save claims not included in the first complaint against First Citizens or Ruff (except for Ruff's “Professional Malpractice” which relates back to the first negligence claim). The matter was remanded for Ruff’s professional malpractice claim; affirmed as to First Citizens and as to Ruff’s other claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rule 41(a)(1) relation back apply to claims not included in the first complaint?	Williams argues relation back extends to all second-complaint claims.	Ruff and First Citizens contend only claims included in the first complaint may relate back.	Relation back only applies to claims included in the first complaint; nonincluded claims are barred.
Does the Professional Malpractice claim against Ruff relate back to the first complaint?	Williams contends the new label does not bar timely relief.	Ruff contends the claims are distinct from the initial negligence claim.	Professional Malpractice claim relates back to the negligence claim; timely; remand for that claim.

Losing v. Food Lion, L.L.C., 185 N.C. App. 278 (N.C. App. 2007) (Rule 41(a)(1) relation back limited to claims in the original complaint)
Staley v. Lingerfelt, 134 N.C. App. 294 (N.C. App. 1999) (New state-law claims barred if not included initially despite same events)
Stanford v. Owens, 76 N.C. App. 284 (N.C. App. 1985) (Fraud claims require particularity and may be time-barred despite relation back)
Richardson v. McCracken Enters., 126 N.C. App. 506 (N.C. App. 1997) (Rule 41 context; distinction from relation-back analysis in this case)
Centura Bank v. Winters, 159 N.C. App. 456 (N.C. App. 2003) (Rule 41 interpretation; discuss adjudication on merits aspect)
In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373 (N.C. 1989) (Precedent binding on subsequent panels when same issue decided)