Aaron LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERGMAN & BEVING AB; Luna Ab, Defendants-Appellees, and Hassleholms Mekanisk, Ab, and or its successor or assign, purchaser or surviving legal entity; A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial #:954; Unknown Seller of A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial #:954; Unknown Distributor, A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial #:954; Unknown Importer, A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial #:954, Defendants.
No. 04-2506
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Decided Aug. 7, 2006
Argued May 22, 2006.
457 F.3d 363
Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILLIAMS and Judge GREGORY joined.
OPINION
FLOYD, District Judge.
Aaron Locklear (Locklear) brings this appeal, asserting that the district court erred when it dismissed his action against Luna AB (Luna) and Bergman & Beving
Locklear contends that the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint because Luna and Bergman were properly substituted for a mistakenly-named defendant and effectuated with service within a court-granted extension as set forth by
We disagree and, for the reasons set forth below, affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
The parties agree on most of the facts relevant to this appeal. On December 20, 1999, Locklear‘s right hand became “de-gloved” while operating a metal fabrication machine during the course of his employment at Maryland Plastics, Inc. in Aberdeen, Maryland. (J.A. at 113.) Maryland‘s three-year limitations period covering tort claims applies to this case; however, due to a temporary tolling provision governing worker‘s compensation claims, the statute of limitations expired on or about February 20, 2003.
Locklear filed his original complaint on December 17, 2002, with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The original complaint named as defendants (1) Hassleholms Mekanisk AB (Hassleholms); (2) a Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine identified by serial number; and (3) “John Doe” defendants for the unknown seller, distributor, and importer of the machine. (J.A. at 6-7, 113.) At the time of Locklear‘s original filing, he stated that service of the summons would occur “at a later date.” (J.A. at 14.)
Locklear did not serve Hassleholms, the originally named defendant, within the 120-day period required by
On September 4, 2003, Locklear filed a motion requesting nine additional months in which to effectuate service. (J.A. at 15.) As the basis for his request, Locklear informed the court that he had only recently discovered that Luna and Bergman were the correct manufacturers of the machine and that Hassleholms, the originally-named defendant, was merely the city where the manufacturer was located. (J.A. at 15-16, 18.) The district court granted the motion, ordering that service be effected upon Luna and Bergman on or before June 17, 2004, and directed that an amended complaint be filed on or before October 10, 2003. (J.A. at 19.)
On October 9, 2003, Locklear filed his amended complaint, replacing the previously-named Hassleholms with newly-named Defendants Luna and Bergman. (J.A. at 20.) Locklear first contacted Luna and Bergman via electronic mail messages sent to their corporate officers on February 20, 2004. (J.A. at 53, 55.) On March 26, 2004, summonses were issued for Luna and Bergman, and process was served on Bergman and Luna on April 27, 2004, and April 28, 2004, respectively.
Luna and Bergman subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Locklear‘s action was barred by Maryland‘s three-year statute of limitations and that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland. The district court, without reaching the jurisdictional issue, granted the motion, holding that it failed to relate back to the original com-
II.
The issue before us is whether an amended complaint filed after the statute of limitations expired but during a court-ordered extension of time for service of process, which adds a new party in place of a mistakenly-named party, relates back to the original complaint pursuant
As already observed, under Maryland law, Locklear‘s products liability claim against Luna and Bergman is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (subject to extension under the worker‘s compensation scheme), which expired on February 20, 2003.
Locklear raises two arguments in support of his assertion that his amended complaint relates back pursuant to
An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when
. . .
(2) 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, or
(3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.
The amended complaint in this case indisputably satisfies the first requirement of Rule 15(c)(3) because it simply adds the
Although Rule 15(c)(3)(B) speaks broadly of a “mistake concerning the identity of the proper party,” we have, in analyzing the scope of this rule, distinguished between mistake due to a lack of knowledge and mistake due to a misnomer. In so doing, we have not viewed lack of knowledge of the proper party to be sued as a “mistake” as that term is used in Rule 15(c)(3)(B). In the principal case on point, Western Contracting Corp. v. Bechtel Corp., 885 F.2d 1196, 1201 (4th Cir.1989), we adopted the Seventh Circuit‘s holding that
Id. (quoting Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir.1980)) (internal citations omitted). We have also noted that “Rule 15 has its limits, and courts properly exercise caution when reviewing an application of the rule which would increase a defendant‘s exposure to liability.” Intown Properties Management, Inc. v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 271 F.3d 164, 170 (4th Cir.2001); see also Rennie v. Omniflight Helicopters, Inc., No. 97-1524, 1998 WL 743678 (4th Cir. Oct.23, 1998). Rule 15, moreover, must be applied especially cautiously when an amendment that “drags a new defendant into a case” is proposed. Intown Properties, 271 F.3d at 170.Rule 15(c)(2)3 permits an amendment to relate back where that party is chargeable with knowledge of the mistake, but it does not permit relation back where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party.
Our interpretation of Rule 15(c)(3)(B) finds support in the jurisprudence of other circuits. For example, in Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913, 918 (D.C.Cir.1997), the D.C. Circuit held that “a potential defendant who has not been named in a lawsuit by the time the statute of limitations has run is entitled to repose—unless it is or should be apparent to the person that he is the beneficiary of a mere slip of the pen [.]” Likewise, the First Circuit, in adopting the same rationale we relied upon in Bechtel, found that a mistake does not relate back “where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party.” Wilson v. United States Gov‘t, 23 F.3d 559, 563 (1st Cir.1994) (quoting Wood, 618 F.2d at 1230). Similarly, the advisory committee‘s notes to the 1991 amendments to Rule 15(c) lend support to the conclusion that “mistake” under subsection (3)(B) is distinguishable from a lack of knowledge of the proper defendant to be sued. The committee noted, “If the notice requirement is met within the Rule 4(m) period, a complaint may be amended at any time to correct a formal defect such as a misnomer or misidentification.”
Based on these interpretations of Rule 15(c)(3)(B)—including our decision in Bechtel, which controls here—Locklear‘s substitution of Luna and Bergman for Hassleholms does not, for several reasons, qualify as a mistake under Rule 15(c)(3)(B).
First, Locklear‘s attempt to replace Hassleholms with Luna and Bergman can hardly be counted as a “mere slip of the pen.” Rather, Locklear, by his own ad-
Second, Locklear‘s argument, if accepted, would erode the distinction between misidentification and lack of knowledge which we have held to be inherent in the meaning of Rule 15(c)(3)(B). Bechtel, 885 F.2d at 1201. As a result, Locklear would expand Rule 15(c)(3) beyond its intended purpose, which is to prevent a defendant from defeating an action on the basis of a formality that is neither a surprise or prejudicial to the misnamed party. Nassim, 107 F.3d at 918.
Third, Locklear‘s position fails because it would produce a paradoxical result wherein a plaintiff with no knowledge of the proper defendant could file a timely complaint naming any entity as a defendant and then amend the complaint to add the proper defendant after the statute of limitations had run. In effect, this would circumvent the weight of federal case law holding that the substitution of named parties for “John Doe” defendants does not constitute a mistake pursuant to Rule 15(c)(3). Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 1103-04 (11th Cir.1999); Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir.1998); Baskin v. City of Des Plaines, 138 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir.1998); Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th Cir.1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep‘t, 66 F.3d 466, 470 (2d Cir.1995), modified 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996); Wilson, 23 F.3d at 563.
To overcome these deficiencies in his position, Locklear relies primarily on McGuire v. Turnbo, 137 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir.1998), for his assertion that adding a new party during a court-granted extension satisfies Rule 15(c)(3)(B).4 McGuire, however, is easily distinguished because it addresses the formal name-correcting amendments anticipated when suing a United States entity or official.
In McGuire, the plaintiff originally sued the warden and other federal prison personnel because of their status as agents of the United States. Id. at 321. After filing the original complaint, the plaintiff received a two-week extension to serve process on the named defendants and the United States Attorney and United States Attorney General. Id. at 322. McGuire subsequently amended her complaint to include the United States as a party. Id.
The 1991 Committee Notes address this type of name-changing situation by stating:
Rule 15(c) in conjunction with the revision of Rule 4(i) with respect to the failure of a plaintiff in an action against the United States to effect timely service on all the appropriate officials is intended to produce results contrary to those reached in Gardner v. Gartman, 880 F.2d 797, 799 (4th Cir.1989) (holding that the naming of one government party or the wrong government official does not place the proper government party
or official on notice of the suit); Rys v. U.S. Postal Service, 886 F.2d 443, 446-47 (1st Cir.1989) (finding that although a plaintiff had named the United States Postal Service and three local departments, he was barred from amending his complaint to name the Postmaster General of the United States); Martin‘s Food & Liquor Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 702 F.Supp. 215, 216 (N.D.Ill.1988) (dismissing the plaintiff‘s case against the United States Department of Agriculture because he was required to name the United States).
We therefore reaffirm that Rule 15(c)(3)(B) is not satisfied when the claimed mistake consists of a lack of knowledge of the proper party to be sued. Because we find that replacing Hassleholms with Luna and Bergman does not qualify as a “mistake” as that term is used in this rule, we need not address Locklear‘s second argument that Luna and Bergman were properly noticed and effectuated with service under Rule 4(m) as extended by the district court. See Leonard v. Parry, 219 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir.2000) (noting that each of the Rule 15(c)(3) must be satisfied before an amendment will relate back).
III.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court‘s dismissal of Locklear‘s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
HENRY F. FLOYD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE