*1 81 P.3d individual, BLACK,
Robert individual, Marks, an
Robert
Plaintiffs-Appellants, INC., INNS, Defendant-
AMERITEL
Respondent.
No. 29580.
Supreme Court of
Boise, September 2003 Term.
Nov.
(2002). The Commission dismissed their complaint. Upon the dismissal of a com- Commission, plaint complainant before the has 90 to file a civil action in district court. Id. 23, 2001, day
On March the ninetieth day from the the Commission dismissed the Appellants’ complaint, Washington the attor- ney filed this lawsuit in Idaho state court 67-5909(5)(a). alleging § a violation of I.C. Washington attorney signed The the names Appellants, initials, followed his as Todd, Boise, appellants. John for Russell unrepresented parties. the of The argued. Jones Washington attorney claims he associated Jones, Boise, respondent. Jim for Jim purposes himself with an Idaho for argued. Jones court, fifing of a lawsuit in Idaho state the learned abandoned the KIDWELL, Justice. 29, 2001, May case at the last minute. On Appellants’ Ameritel moved to strike the Robert Black (Appel- and Robert Marks complaint ground on the it did not meet the lants) Inns, (Ameritel), sued Ameritel Inc. 11(a)(1). signature requirements of I.R.C.P. alleging they were denied accommodations 26, 2001, Appellants On June the filed an they Gypsies. because Appellants’ The complaint using Idaho counsel. attorney, licensed but not Ida- ho, complaint filed a in Idaho district court 1, 2001, August grant- On the district court Appellants’ the names as the ed Ameritel’s complaint motion to strike the unrepresented persons. of The dis- ground the did not meet the granted trict court Ameritel’s motion to 11(a)(1) signature requirements of Rule be- strike the because it Washington attorney, cause the not the 11(a)(1). required by The pellants, signed complaint. August the On rejected district court the subse- Appellants the filed a motion to quent motion to reconsider reconsider. On December the dis- Idaho filed an amended trict court denied the motion reconsider on Appellants. Appellants on behalf of the grounds original complaint was defec- appealed Appeals and the Idaho tive, Court 90-day so the statute of limitation was judgment. reversed the district court’s This by filing original complaint not tolled judgment Court now affirms the of the dis- defective, original complaint because the trict court. the amended did not “relate back” original complaint
to the date the
was filed.
result,
As a
the amended
was filed
I.
90-day
period.
outside the
limitation
AND
FACTUAL
PROCEDURAL
sought
Appellants
from
BACKGROUND
judgment of the district court and the Court
Appellants allege
Appeals
Ameritel denied
reversed the district court. The
they
Appeals
origi-
them accommodations
were Court of
determined
because
Gypsies.
Appellants
purposes
are
nal
residents of
was defective for
Washington. They
agent signed
li-
hired an
on
because
Washington,
Appellants,
censed to
but not
but that the com-
law,
required by
plaint
unsigned
Idaho. As
should be treated as
rather
Wash-
ington attorney
filed a
with the
than in violation of Rule
The Court
(Com-
Rights
Human
Idaho Commission On
then reasoned that since the com-
mission)
unsigned,
Appellants, pursu-
behalf of
before
67-5908(2)
Rule,
remedy
§
fifing
this lawsuit.
Idaho Code
ant to the
could
jurisdictions
from other
case law
complaint.
persuasive
signing the
defect
may
some cases
directly
point.
Appel-
Appeals determined the
The Court of
issue.
analyzing
provide a framework
defect on the date
lants were notified
As a
filed its motion to strike.
Ameritel
law
argue that Federal case
*3
result,
it
of
reasoned was
unrep-
the Court
of an
sign
on behalf
allows an
days
27
from the date
otherwise
a court is
resented
“When
they
until
filed
aware of the defect
pleading,
made
party endorses the
assured that the
complaint. The Court of
sign
their amended
has been
complete failure to
even a
thus,
prompt;
peals
Covington
then held 27
defect.”
termed a mere technical
Cir.1976).
(5th
1365,
Cole,
remedied. Ameritel
the defect was
1370
v.
528 F.2d
timely
granted,
by
review
sought,
and this Court
Covington,
a
plaintiffs
now
wife
Appeals’
by
of
decision. We
rather
plaintiff,
Court
The
“attorney
affirm the district court.
in fact.” Id. at 1369.
as
deciding whether
reasoned “[without
Court
attorney in fact
signature by
spouse
a
as
II.
11,
easily
Rule we can
can
sufficient under
be
prej-
sponte
STANDARD OF REVIEW
conclude that sua
dismissal
disposition in face of
proper
is not a
udice
interpretation
of the Idaho Rules
defect,
arguable
at most a technical de-
this
of law.
of Civil Procedure is
matter
Furthermore,
Covington
fect.”
Id.
“Mrs.
State,
18, 21,
v.
995
Hutchinson
134
Covington’s
purporting to be Mr.
author-
363,
(Ct.App.1999).
366
This Court ex
agent,
represent
did not
herself
ized
and
of law.
ercises free review over matters
However,
lawyer.”
it should be
be a
Id.
Dev.,
Design
Eagle
Quality
Iron
L.L.C. v.
Covington
himself
noted that “Edwin
Inc.,
509,
Sys.,
65 P.3d
probable
request
for a certificate of
(2003).
513
Thus,
assured the
cause.” Id.
the Court was
plaintiff
filing
of the com-
assented
III.
plaint.
case,
Appellants’ Washing
ANALYSIS
signed complaint
ton counsel wrote
Signature By
Agent
A. The
An
Of An
attorney was
Appellants.
behalf of the
Unrepresented
Party
ATo
Civil
in
Washington,
but not licensed
Satisfy
Sig-
Lawsuit Does Not
Covington,
there is no indication
Idaho.
Requirements
nature
Of
Covington
that
also wrote the
Mrs.
did in this case.
as the
According
Although
to Idaho
Covington,
law:
Gonzales
157 F.3d
1021
their merits because
11 is not intended
“Rule
Cir.1998). Thus,
litigants
both
must
stumbling
pursuit
to be a
block to the
Stalder,
appeal.
a notice of
Carter v.
60 justice.
primary goal
application
in the
(5th
Cir.1995);
F.3d
see Church v.
of Rule 11
is to deter
and motion
(2nd
IRS,
Comm’r
Cir.1987).
F.2d 19
Baechler,
abuses.” Hadlock v.
F.R.D.
distinguished
The Gonzales Court
the situa-
(W.D.Ar.1991).
nonlawyer signs
tion where a
the notice of Washington attorney
and the
did
appeal on behalf of another and where a
signatures
inadvertently.
not omit
their
party
unsigned.
submits the notice
Gon- Rather,
drafted,
the Washington attorney
zales,
nonlawyer
neither Idaho Rule Appellants’ because defective such, “promptly.” As federal law defines Washington attorney was on notice may provide persuasive some au case law at the time complaint’s defect thority interpret Idaho Rule be such, amended complaint. As original the federal and Idaho rules are sub cause if prompt even Idaho 11(a)(1); stantially similar. Fed. unsigned complaints provision for ll’s cure R.Civ.P. 11. apply. were to To determine whether Is Not Entitled To Attor- D. Ameritel prompt, it must first ney Appeal Pursuant Fees On from date the time be determined which § 12-121. I.C. period began run. Common sense reason- ing guides analysis. Respondent this Court’s Respondent seeks argues that run from the date should § on I.C. 12-121. This fees on based filed; however, date the first award fees under this Court “will *5 argue com- the the date should be only brought, pursued, statute if an puted Respon- from the date notice of the unreasonably frivolously, or or defended by dent’s motion to strike was received mail. Davison’s Air Serv. without foundation.” accept Appellants’ argument To the would Inc., Montierth, v. 119 Idaho 812 agree mean this Court would have to that the 298, (Ct.App.1990). No P.2d 300 Washington attorney any had no notice of fairly if there are debatable fees are awarded signing original defect in the of the com- Appel questions. See id. the plaint. to especially This seems be a stretch raising impression of first to lants are issues expressly since there is no case law that Furthermore, there is no con this Court. agent sign unrepresented allows an to for an sensus as to how other courts have treated lawyer acting prudently A would issues, by arguments presented the these so have amended his client’s the are reasonable and not frivo proper signatures, days rather than 64 Therefore, lous. no fees are award short, explicit later. In because there was no ed. authority Washington attorney for the agent, as his clients’ he should have IV. defect; therefore, been notice of a CONCLUSION period began filing time to run at the time of original complaint. pursuant sig- holds that This Court length requirements This Court must next determine the nature 11(a)(1), prompt sign complaint of time for a v. cure. Williams an cannot Warden, plaintiff unrepresented parties failed to his behalf of and that complaint. plain- pellants’ original The Court held the was in vio- thirty days tiff “shall have from the date of lation of the Rule. Even if Idaho’s Rule 11 accompanying provision apply, Appellants’ Order within which to cure were to original copy Washington attorney sign- of the and return on notice of a Warden, ing filing same to the defect at the time of because no Clerk.” Williams (E.D. 1992). 65, Also, precedent 145 F.R.D. 66 Penn clear established that an can pa- unrepresented court denied a leave to amend because on behalf of Therefore, pers parties. an omitted subse- served discussed signature plaintiff quent complaint, and did filed 64 amended provide signed pleading original filing, prompt. not for five weeks. is not No attor- awarded; City Hosp. ney v. New York Health and fees are costs are awarded to Wrenn (D.C.N.Y.1985). Corp., Respondent. 104 F.R.D. 556 516 TROUT, strike,
Chief Justice Justice when Ameritel filed its motion to properly signed SCHROEDER and BURDICK concur. twenty-eight days my opinion, filed later. EISMANN, J., CONCURRING THE IN promptly signing that constituted the com
RESULT. signature after the omission EISMANN, concurring Justice in the pleader. called to the attention of the result. The district court struck the com- I do not believe that Rule of the however, plaint, filing because the of it con- of Civil Rules authorizes practice Procedure stituted the unauthorized of law. striking in this ease. Jones, appellants’ attorney, Russell is not purpose of that rule is to insure that a practice licensed to law in the state of Idaho. document in a by filed case is either complaint, signed He drafted the his clients’ practice Idaho, licensed to it, having names to it without them reviewed by litigant or repre- if he or she is not and then it filed had with the clerk of the practice sented County, district court Ada Idaho. Such so that an sanction can be conduct practice constituted the unauthorized imposed if the document was in viola- Depew, of law. In re 560 tion of the rule. (1977); Brainard, In re (1) P.2d 769 Where the (2) fact, grounded
well
prac-
constituted the unauthorized
warranted
existing
law,
good
argument
law a
faith
or
for
tice
district court did not abuse its
extension, modification,
by striking
or reversal of discretion
it. As we stated in
law,
existing
Brainard,
interposed
any
for
particular
“The
reason or necessi-
improper purpose, such as to
or
ty
having
legal
performed
harass
work
unnecessary delay
cause
in-
justification
needless
being
law without
*6
litigation.
156-57,
creases in the costs of
litigant signs the document violation of requirements,
these he or is then she liable 11(a)(1).
for sanctions under Rule
nothing
indicating
there is
the record
in violation of
the omission is called to the attention of the BYINGTON, Brandy Defendant- pleader provision provides or movant.” This Appellant. forcing proper signature. a means of I No. 28737. agree signed by that a document that either an licensed to Court of of Idaho. litigant, unrepre Idaho or the if he or she is Oct. 2003. action, sented should be considered as being unsigned. only provides, The rule Review Dismissed Oct. however, that the document can stricken signed “promptly if it is not after the omis pleader
sion is called to the attention of the phrase
or movant.” The “called to the atten part knowledge
tion” indicates not pleader else rais or movant but someone Here,
ing was raised the issue. the issue