Wright v. PK Transport
325 P.3d 894
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wright, plaintiff, sues for negligence arising from a Sept. 26, 2003 car accident.
- Original defendants were PK Transport and William Dunn; complaint filed Feb. 5, 2007, within four-year limitations.
- Amended complaint adding Paradise Turf and Richard Riding as defendants filed March 24, 2009, after the limitations period.
- District court converted motion to dismiss to summary judgment and held the amended claims did not relate back under Rule 15(c).
- Court held misnomer not present; focus shifted to whether added parties had identity of interest and sufficient notice.
- Wright sought Rule 56(f) discovery to show factual issues; district court denied; appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint relates back under Rule 15(c). | Wright argues relation back via identity of interest. | Appellees contend no relation back due to lack of notice. | No relation back; claims barred by statute of limitations. |
| Whether Appellees received constructive notice under the Notice Transfer Test. | Wright asserts constructive notice through shared interests. | Appellees argue interests were not sufficiently shared to bind notice. | Not satisfied; constructive notice failed. |
| Whether there was actual notice prior to expiration to satisfy relation back. | Deposition evidence shows possible actual notice. | No evidence of actual notice before expiration; Dunn’s agency insufficient proof. | No actual notice shown; relation back not established. |
| Whether Wright's Rule 56(f) discovery request was properly denied. | Discovery could raise issues about notice and agency. | No need for further discovery given lack of genuine issue. | No abuse of discretion; denial proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ottens v. McNeil, 2010 UT App 237, 239 P.3d 308 (Utah App. 2010) (two-part notice analysis; identity of interest and actual noticeNot used for misnomer)
- Gary Porter Construction v. Fox Construction, Inc., 2004 UT App 354, 101 P.3d 371 (Utah App. 2004) (actual notice can substitute for constructive notice under relation back)
- Penrose v. Ross, 2008 UT App 157, 71 P.3d 631 (Utah App. 2008) (misnomer and identity of interest considerations)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 UT 6, 297 P.3d 578 (Utah 2013) (summary judgment standard; appellate review)
- Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, 104 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2004) (summary judgment and related procedural considerations)