Creighton E. Miller, Administrator of the Estates of Juvenal J. Rezendes, Deceased (99-3703), Louie E. Hudson, Deceased (99-3705), Booker T. Pompey, Deceased (99-3707), Walter L. Bowman, Deceased (99-3708), William B. Birch, Jr. (99-3709) v. American Heavy Lift Shipping
Nos. 99-3703, 99-3705, 99-3707, 99-3708, 99-3709
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Argued: June 21, 2000; Decided and Filed: November 3, 2000
231 F.3d 242
Before: MERRITT, GUY, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. Nos. 90-10263; 91-10448; 91-10775; 92-10151; 92-10427--John M. Manos, District Judge.
Harold W. Henderson, Richard C. Binzley, THOMPSON HINE & FLORY LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Defendants-Appellees.
Gene B. George, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.
COLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which MERRITT, J., joined. GUY, J. (pp. 252-53), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
OPINION
R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge.
1 Plaintiff-Appellant Creighton E. Miller is the administrator of the estates of five deceased seamen. In the years 1990-1992, Miller brought five separate actions against various shipowners and operators, alleging survival and wrongful death claims under the Jones Act,
I. BACKGROUND
2 Miller is the administrator of the estates of Juvenal J. Rezendes, William B. Birch, Jr., Walter L. Bowman, Louie E. Hudson, and Booker T. Pompey (“the seamen“). Each of the seamen worked for many years on various ships. All the seamen were diagnosed with leukemia prior to their deaths in 1987, 1988, or 1989. In 1990, 1991, and 1992, Miller brought suit under the Jones Act,
3 10. While serving as a mariner on said vessels, Plaintiff‘s decedent was exposed to hazardous substances other than asbestos.
4 11. As a direct and proximate consequence of his exposure to hazardous substances other than asbestos, Plaintiff‘s decedent has sustained injuries....
5 Later in each complaint, Miller further stated:
6 16. While serving as a mariner on said vessels, Plaintiff‘s decedent was exposed to asbestos and hazardous substances other than asbestos.
7 17. As a direct and proximate consequence of Plaintiff‘s decedent[‘s] combined exposure to asbestos and hazardous substances other than asbestos, Plaintiff‘s decedent has sustained injuries.
8 In response to numerous asbestos-related personal injury actions filed by seamen in the Northern District of Ohio, the court created a special Ohio Maritime Asbestos Litigation Docket (known as “MARDOC“). See Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d at 639. Miller‘s five actions were transferred to MARDOC. As part of the MARDOC litigation, Miller produced an “Initial Data Form” (“IDF“), a summary of basic information about each claim, for each of his five claims. Miller apparently produced the IDFs within weeks or months of filing his complaints and made them available to Shippers as part of the discovery process; however, the IDFs were not filed with the court. On the Rezendes IDF, Miller stated that Rezendes suffered from colon cancer, but did not mention leukemia; under the heading labeled “Toxin,” Miller inserted “Asbestos-Tobacco Smoke.” On Birch‘s IDF, Miller identified leukemia, in addition to other illnesses, and again identified asbestos and tobacco smoke under the “Toxin” heading. Bowman‘s IDF did not specify any illness, but listed asbestos and tobacco smoke as toxins. Hudson‘s IDF identified leukemia as an illness but listed only asbestos as a toxin. Pompey‘s IDF identified leukemia as an illness and listed asbestos and tobacco smoke as toxins. At some point during the course of litigation -- the timing is not clear from the record before us -- Miller also produced death certificates for each of the deceased seamen which indicated that some form of leukemia was the cause, or a contributing factor to, each sailor‘s death.
9 In 1991 and 1992, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred thousands of asbestos claims, including the five cases Miller currently appeals, to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial proceedings, pursuant to
10 In March 1995, Shippers filed a consolidated motion for a more definite statement of Miller‘s claims, see
11 In April 1997, Miller filed amended complaints on behalf of the estates of each of the deceased seamen. In the amended complaints, Miller again alleged theories of liability under both the Jones Act,
12 The district court granted summary judgment to Shippers in each case. In five nearly identical memorandum opinions, the court addressed only the relation-back question, finding that none of the amended complaints related back to the original filing. The court relied on Shippers’ uncontested argument that different toxins and different methods of exposure cause different diseases, and found that “[e]xposure to benzene does not occur or act in the same manner as exposure to asbestos.” The court found that Miller‘s original allegation that seamen had been exposed to “hazardous substances other than asbestos” was insufficient to put Shippers on notice of the benzene-related claims, and concluded that “[t]aken to its logical conclusion, Plaintiff‘s position means the Defendants are forever on notice of claims arising out of exposure to any hazardous substance.” Miller filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
13 The parties disagree about the standard by which we review the district court‘s decision that Miller‘s amended complaints do not relate back to his original complaints for purposes of Rule 15(c)(2). Miller argues that this court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment based on the running of a statute of limitations. Shippers argue that we review the district court‘s decision for abuse of discretion.
14 The standard of review for the district court‘s summary judgment order is, of course, de novo. See Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857, 863 (6th Cir. 1997). Further, Miller is correct that this court reviews de novo a district court‘s determination
III. DISCUSSION
15 On appeal, Miller argues that the district court erred by finding that the amended complaints do not relate back to the original complaints.4 Miller‘s argument is comprised of essentially three assertions: 1) that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a plaintiff to give a defendant only general notice of his claims, and that Millers‘s original complaints provided such notice; 2) that his amended complaints relates back because the claims in the amended complaints arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as set forth in his original complaints; and 3) that both the original complaints and information outside of the complaints gave Shippers adequate notice of their potential liability for the claims raised in the amended complaints.
A. General Notice Required by Rules
16 Miller first argues that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a pleading contain a short and plain description of the court‘s jurisdiction, the pleader‘s claim for relief, and a demand for the judgment the pleader seeks. See
B. Same Conduct, Transaction, or Occurrence
17 Rule 15(c)(2) states that: An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when... the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.
18
19 The rule is based on the notion that once litigation involving particular conduct or a given transaction or occurrence has been instituted, the parties are not entitled to the protection of the statute of limitations against the later assertion by amendment of defenses or claims that arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as set forth in the original pleading.
20 Brown v. Shaner, 172 F.3d 927, 932 (6th Cir. 1999).
21 This court has stated that “the thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.‘” Moore, 790 F.2d at 559 (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982)). Thus, a court will permit a party to add even a new legal theory in an amended pleading as long as it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence. See Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479, 484 (6th Cir. 1973) (“where the parties are the same, . . . an amendment which adds another claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence does relate back to the date of the original complaint.“); Koon v. Lakeshore Contractors, 128 F.R.D. 650, 653 (W.D. Mich. 1988) (“an added theory of liability for the same occurrence may relate back.” (citing Hageman)), aff‘d without opinion, 889 F.2d 1087 (Table), 1989 WL 137151 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 1989); see also 6A Wright et al., federal practice and procedure § 1497, at 94-95, 98-99 (1990 & Supp. 2000) (“an amendment that states an entirely new claim for relief will relate back as long as it satisfies the test embodied in . . . Rule 15(c).“). Likewise, “[a]n amendment that alleges added events leading up to the same injury may relate back.” Koon, 128 F.R.D. at 653 (citing Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 323 U.S. 574, 581 (1945)).
22 Miller argues that the amended claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original claims. See
23 Under the Rules described above, we find this argument to be persuasive. Miller brought his original complaints under the Jones Act,
24 Shippers argue strenuously that the amended complaints do not arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaints, because they contain new “operative facts.”6 It is true that a claim with entirely different “operative facts” will not relate back. See Koon, 128 F.R.D. at 653 (finding that new claim of lower back injury sustained while jumping to the ground from a fence does not relate back to original complaint of neck injury sustained while lifting heavy object on board a barge). But Miller alleged the very same general set of facts in the amended complaints as he did in the original ones: that decedents worked for many years on Shippers’ vessels, that they were exposed to hazardous substances during
C. Notice to Shippers
25 Although the focus of our inquiry into whether an amendment relates back pursuant to Rule 15(c)(2) is whether it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, we look to other factors as well. “Undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment are all factors which may affect the decision.” Hageman, 486 F.2d at 484. Of these factors, “[n]otice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are critical . . . in determining whether an amendment should be granted.” Id.; see also Brown, 172 F.3d at 934 (permitting relation back of amended complaint where defendants “‘knew or should have known‘” that they were targets of § 1983 suit).
26 Miller argues that his original complaints put Shippers on notice that they must defend Jones Act and general maritime law toxic tort actions which alleged wrongful death due to exposure to asbestos and/or other hazardous substances. Shippers respond that Miller‘s non-specific, general allegations were insufficient to put them on notice of his benzene-related leukemia claims8. In this context, the partiesargue the relevance of Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 323 U.S. 574 (1945), to the instant case. In Tiller, the wife of a railroad employee who was killed on the job sued the defendant rail company under the FELA,
27 Shippers contend that Tiller is inapposite to the instant case because the amendment in Tiller did not fundamentally change the nature of plaintiff‘s claim, in that both the original claim and the amended claim involved a single, traumatic incident within the defendant‘s knowledge. Shippers assert that they, in contrast to the Tiller defendant, had no knowledge of the deceased seamen‘s leukemic injuries until Miller filed the amended complaints, many years after decedents were allegedly injured. We disagree. The original complaints in this case made clear that the deceased seamen had suffered latent injuries, based upon exposure to toxic substances on board Shippers’ vessels, that resulted in their illnesses and eventual deaths. See Benco Plastics, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 387 F. Supp. 772, 783 (E.D. Tenn. 1974) (stating that “the rule to be followed in federal courts is that if there is an identity between the amendment and the original complaint with regard to the general wrong suffered and with regard to the general conduct causing such wrong, then the amendment shall relate back and the statute of limitations would not avail to preclude a hearing on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The amended claim in Tiller appears to have gone further yet, stating a new theory of recovery by referring to a statute not alleged in the original complaint (i.e., the Federal Boiler Inspection Act). See id. at 580. Yet, the Tiller Court found that the defendants were on notice based upon the original complaint. Id. at 581. We thus conclude that the Tiller Court‘s broad application of Rule 15(c) supports Miller‘s relation-back theory. See id. at 580-81.
28 Nor are we persuaded by Shippers’ argument that Miller‘s original complaints were so general that, if they are construed to give notice of benzene-related leukemia claims, defendants in asbestos cases will be forever on notice of claims arising out of exposure to any hazardous substance. The district court relied on this reasoning in its decision, finding that “the Court would emasculate the statute of limitations requirement if it gave to the phrase ‘hazardous substances other than asbestos’ the breadth [Miller] seeks.” This reasoning is only facially appealing. The complaints in this case alleged that Shippers’ former employees had died as a result of being exposed to hazardous substances aboard the vessels Shippers owned and operated. Shippers were on notice that they needed to collect and preserve evidence relating to the working environment in their ships. Miller, for his part, had the right and responsibility to pursue through discovery the nature and circumstances of decedents‘working environments and deaths. To be sure, both parties may have had difficult tasks in conducting this discovery, but that difficulty goes to the substance of the lawsuit rather than to whether Shippers knew that they were being sued, and on what general grounds. If, at some point in the future, Miller attempts to amend his claim again, the court will be free to determine whether it should relate back, looking to possible prejudice to the parties, unwarranted delay, futility, and the other factors appropriately considered under Rule 15(c). See Hageman, 486 F.2d at 484. These factors are an adequate protection against Shippers being forever liable for claims arising from Miller‘s original pleading.
29 One more case demands our discussion. The parties argue the relevance of Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638 (6th Cir. 1993), in which this court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion under
30 The relevance of Smith to this case is minimal. First, we typically review a district court‘s case-management decision made pursuant to Rule 16 for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1998). As discussed supra, we review the district court‘s decision to forbid relation back pursuant to Rule 15(c)(2) de novo. See Dominguez, 51 F.3d at 1509. Second, counsel in Smith never formally pursued the tobacco theory, but rather adopted it as a trial tactic at the last minute. Id. at 643. In the instant case, Miller filed amended complaints alleging the benzene claims, and pursued them in the lower court. Thus, Smith has little relevance to the instant case.
IV. CONCLUSION
31 For the reasons discussed, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Creighton E. Miller, Administrator of the Estates of Juvenal J. Rezendes, Deceased (99-3703), Louie E. Hudson, Deceased (99-3705), Booker T. Pompey, Deceased (99-3707), Walter L. Bowman, Deceased (99-3708), William B. Birch, Jr. (99-3709) v. American Heavy Lift Shipping
Nos. 99-3703, 99-3705, 99-3707, 99-3708, 99-3709
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
231 F.3d 242
33 Even under the de novo standard of review, I cannot agree that the amended complaints at issue in this case relate back to the date of the original pleadings under Rule 15(c)(2). The rationale behind this rule is to allow relation back when the defendant has been put on notice, through the pleadings or other sources, of the entire scope of the transaction or occurrence. See Barcume v. City of Flint, 819 F. Supp. 631, 636 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (citing Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 2d §§ 1496-97). The focus of the inquiry is not whether the claim or theory in the amended complaint is new, but rather whether it arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. See Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479, 484 (6th Cir. 1973) (added theory for same occurrence may relate back)1-1. An amendment that states a claim basedupon different facts will not relate back to the date of the original complaint. See Koon v. Lakeshore Contractors, 128 F.R.D. 650, 653 (W.D. Mich. 1988), aff‘d without opinion, 889 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir. 1989) (amendment alleging negligence and unsafe working conditions under Jones Act did not relate back because it involved different injuries that occurred in different ways).
34 In this case, the original complaints alleged injuries from exposure to “asbestos” and “hazardous substances other than asbestos.” The complaints did not mention leukemia, benzene, or any toxin other than asbestos. Each of the IDF‘s provided to the defendants shortly after the cases were filed identified the toxin either as “asbestos and tobacco smoke” or “asbestos,” but did not mention benzene. The majority‘s conclusion that the amended complaints merely pled with more specificity the same claims, ignores the district court‘s finding that the original complaints did not give adequate notice of the benzene claims. I agree with the district court that the amended complaints substantially altered the factual basis for the toxic tort claims by alleging that the decedents suffered from leukemia caused by exposure to dangerous concentrations of benzene in the air, potable water, and on exposed skin from working with or in close proximity to products containing benzene. There is no dispute that the mechanisms, times, circumstances of, and diseases caused by shipboard exposure to benzene differed significantly from those of shipboard exposure to asbestos. These are the operative facts that determine whether the amendments arose from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaints. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.