THORNE, Judge: Plaintiff Lou Anne appeals from court’s

decision granting Defendants Jess Boeder (Father) Schafer Boeder’s (Son) (collectively, Boeders) motion dismiss for failure state claim. affirm. filed Father on January 2011,

alleging driver who crashed into vehicle it stopped at traffic light January 12, On April filed adding caption but again alleging that automobile accident. On October 27,

Sweat v. the Boeders filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim stating that Father the driver that the four ‐ year of limitations expired as to Son, who the actual driver the vehicle. district court granted the Boeders’ motion dismiss. argues that district court erred granting the motion dismiss based statute Specifically, contends that relation back doctrine under Utah Rule Civil Procedure 15(c) permits her amended complaint—adding as defendant—to relate back to timely filed original complaint. Rule 15(c) provides “[w]henever claim asserted amended pleading arose conduct, transaction, occurrence set forth or attempted be set forth original pleading, amendment relates back date proceeding.” Utah R. Civ. P. 15(c).

¶4 Generally, pleading adds new will relate back filing. Ross App P.3d There are, however, two types cases where relation under rule 15(c) permits complaints with new parties: “misnomer” “identity interest” cases. (internal Here, district court facts parallel those , wherein held neither misnomer nor exception applied. review court’s rule 15(c) analysis correctness standard. Gary Porter Constr. Fox Constr., Inc. argues her initial naming Father the she reasonably relied upon

Salt Lake City Police Department driver exchange form identifying both owner automobile involved

Sweat in the accident with Sweat. ^[1] also argues is a misnomer Son was named in the caption the complaint but inadvertently left the body the complaint. However, neither scenario fits under the category misnomer. “A is involved the correct party served

so the party before the Court the Plaintiff intended to sue, but name description party in Complaint is deficient in some respect.” Tan Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. 2007 App 157 367 (citation internal quotation marks Additionally, courts will generally allow amendment rule correct technical defects in naming or identification “[i]f body correctly identifies party, if proper person has actually been served with process.” (citation internal omitted); see also ¶¶ not presented here. neither identified Son in any capacity in nor served Son until after expiration statute limitations. Son are two distinct defendants, each identified different documents provided prior Because Son’s ascertainable Son was neither served nor identified complaint, case technical mistake. The addition substitution Son, his affidavit, averred gave investigat ‐ ing officer his own name showed officer his driver license vehicle’s registration. citation inves ‐ tigating officer issued Son’s name, Father’s name. In December Boeders’ insurance company sent settlement letter attorney identifying

insured, stating, “Our Insured: Schafer C Boeder.” as a would amount to a substantial change and merely formality or technicality allowed relation doctrine. Thus, misnomer. Having so determined, we next consider whether and have an identity interest permitting to relate back. “Parties have an identity interest real in

interest were sufficiently alerted to proceedings, or were involved them unofficially, from an early stage.” Sulzen v. Williams , 1999 UT App 76, 14, 977 P.2d 497 (citation internal quotation marks omitted). To qualify case, must establish that

(1) pleading alleged only claims that arose conduct, transaction, occurrence set forth attempted to be set forth original pleading (2) added party received (actual constructive) notice it would have been proper party pleading such that no prejudice would result from preventing new from using limitations that otherwise would have been available.

Ottens McNeil , UT App 239 P.3d 308 (citation and internal quotation marks One ways establish constructive notice prove “that new party share ‘the same interest’ concerning litigation, including their legal defenses positions such ‘notice action against serves provide notice action other.’” Id. (quoting App ¶¶ 15–19). method proving constructive notice known “Notice Transfer Test.” (citation internal omitted). ¶9 Here, applying Notice Transfer Test noted facts similar those v. Ross identity of interest analysis in that case is relevant case. The court determined that father son in that did not have identity interest because they did not have same legal interest outcome case. As in Father’s defense is that not negligent liable he not Son’s affirmative focuses on running of statute limitations. legal position defenses two parties not same disposition either does not affect claims defenses available other. See id. Because do not have same legal interest there no identity interest. See id. Since either an interest, we conclude that correctly

declined permit Sweat’s relate therefore properly dismissed case against based Affirmed.

In her summary arguments, cursorily men ‐ tions actual knowledge—at same time Father did—of negligence claim asserted Father. court Ottens McNeil considered whether actual knowledge existed matter. Id. 50. How ‐ ever, Ottens we found unity interest existed of claims. have there no unity here, therefore we do consider actual knowledge argument.