Bates v. Harp
| Decision Date | 31 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2019,76-2019 |
| Citation | 573 F.2d 930 |
| Parties | Thomas E. BATES et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fred HARP, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
W. Henry Haile, Nashville, Tenn., Oliver B. Dickins, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Gen. Counsel, T. V. A., Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and KEITH, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Bates and his wife have appealed from an order of the District Court dismissing their action for damages for personal injuries because of insufficiency of process in the state court where the action was originally filed, and later was removed to the federal court.
The action was filed by plaintiffs on October 16, 1974 in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, against the defendants, Fred Harp, George Moore, and the National Crane Corporation (National), to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Bates when he was struck by a crane during the course and scope of his employment by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Bates did not sue his employer, TVA, because he had applied for and recovered full compensation paid to him for his injuries under the provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Bates alleged that his injuries were caused by reason of the negligence of his fellow-employees, Harp and Moore, and by National, the manufacturer of the crane.
Bates had neglected to file his complaint and summons in the Circuit Court until one day prior to the expiration of Tennessee's one year statute of limitations (T.C.A. § 28-304) applicable to actions for injuries to persons. The address appearing on the summons issued for Harp and Moore was "c/o Tennessee Valley Authority, Lebanon Road, Nashville, Tennessee." Neither Harp nor Moore resided at that address.
The summons for non-resident National was returned served through the Secretary of State. The summons issued for Moore was returned by the Sheriff, not served; the summons issued for Harp was never returned.
Some ten months after filing the complaint, namely on August 16, 1975, an alias summons was issued for and was served upon Harp without filing a new complaint. Harp filed a motion in the Circuit Court to dismiss on the ground that the service of process on him was insufficient under the applicable Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. If plaintiffs had filed a new complaint at that time, which was within a period of one year, they would have fully complied with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Before the Circuit Court had an opportunity to rule on the motion to dismiss, Harp removed the action to the Federal District Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Harp then filed another motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs' action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the FECA.
The District Court held that plaintiffs' action was not barred by FECA and that the failure of plaintiffs to obtain sufficient process upon Harp, as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, deprived the federal court of jurisdiction. The District Court dismissed the action as to Harp and remanded the case to the state court for final disposition of the remaining issues. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Moore and National, and have appealed from the order dismissing Harp. We affirm.
The applicable Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provide as follows:
All civil actions are commenced by filing a complaint with the Court. An action is commenced within the meaning of any statute of limitations upon such filing of a complaint, whether process be returned served or unserved; but if the process is returned unserved, plaintiff, if he wishes to rely upon the original commencement as a bar to the running of a statute of limitations, must either prosecute and continue the action by applying for and obtaining issuance of new process from time to time, each new process to be obtained within six (6) months from return unserved of the previous one, or plaintiff must recommence the action within one (1) year after the return of the initial process not served.
4.01. Summons; Issuance By whom served. Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk of the court wherein the complaint is filed shall forthwith issue the required summons and cause it, with necessary copies of the complaint and summons, to be delivered for service to any person authorized to serve process. This person shall serve the summons, and his return indorsed thereon shall be proof of the time and manner of service. A summons may be issued for service in any county against any defendant, and separate or additional summonses may be issued against any defendant upon request of plaintiff. Nothing in this rule shall affect existing laws with respect to venue.
4.03. Summons Return. The person serving the summons shall promptly and within the time during which the person served must respond, make proof thereof to the court and shall identify the person served and shall describe the manner of service. If a summons is not served within thirty (30) days after its issuance, it shall be returned with the reasons for the failure to serve stated thereon. The plaintiff may obtain new summonses from time to time, as provided in Rule 3, after any prior summons has been returned unserved.
In dismissing the action the District Court ruled that the process was insufficient because the plaintiffs neglected to issue timely new process or to recommence the action as required by Rule 3.
The plaintiffs assert that the issuance of the alias summons on August 16, 1975 constitutes both a valid issuance of new summons and a recommencement of the action. We do not agree.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Adams v. Carter County Memorial Hosp., 548 S.W.2d 307 (Tenn.1977), disposes of the plaintiffs' contention that they properly issued new summons under Rule 3. In construing Rules 3 and 4 the Supreme Court stated:
Summons was issued for defendant Frost on February 8, 1974, the day the complaint was filed, but was not receipted for by the sheriff until August 14, 1974, on which date it was also served and returned. . . . It is clear, however, that the efficacy of this summons terminated upon the expiration of thirty days next following its issuance on February 8, 1974. Rule 4.03, Tenn.R.C.P. Thus, there could be no valid service of that summons after March 10, 1974, so that, the purported service upon defendant Frost on August 14, 1974, was ineffective and was properly quashed by the trial judge.
The Rules plainly contemplate that a summons will be either served within thirty days after its issuance or returned unserved promptly at the end of that period of time. They contain no express provision to govern the situation presented here, in which the summons is neither served nor returned unserved at the end of the thirty day period. Nevertheless, the plaintiff cannot sit idly by when confronted with such a situation. We hold that when the summons is not returned at the end of thirty days following its issuance, the plaintiff must apply for and obtain issuance of new process within six months, or recommence the action within one year, of the end of said thirty days period in order to preserve the original commencement of the action as a bar to the running of a statute of limitations.
Applying Rules 3 and 4, Tenn.R.C.P., as thus construed, to the case at bar, the plaintiff could have applied for and obtained issuance of a new summons up to and including September 10, 1974; but, since this was not done, the instant action became subject to abatement and was properly dismissed by the trial court. (Id. at 309-10)
It is plain from the holding of the Supreme Court of Tennessee that when the summons was not returned at the end of thirty days following its issuance, plaintiffs must then issue new process within six months or recommence the action within one year.
Plaintiffs did not issue new process within the six months period; therefore their action became subject to abatement and was properly dismissed by the District Court.
Rule 3 provides that plaintiffs must recommence the action within one year after the return of the initial process not served. The issuance of a new summons did not recommence their action. The only way they could recommence their action was to comply with Rule 3 which provides the method whereby an action may be originally commenced, namely, by the filing of another complaint.
The adoption of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure in general, and Rule 3 in particular, resulted in a number of changes in the prior Tennessee practice relating to the recommencement of actions. First, the one year recommencement clause under T.C.A. § 28-105, which had been held inapplicable to suits in equity, State v. Rawlings, 170 Tenn. 577, 98 S.W.2d 95 (1936), now applies to such suits. More importantly, the rule utilizes the chancery court procedure of commencement by filing a complaint, rather than the prior practice in the law courts of commencement of an action by the issuance of summons. Lee v. Crenshaw, 562 F.2d 380, 382 (6th Cir. 1977). In light of these significant modifications of prior practice it seems incongruous to claim, as do the plaintiffs, that by retaining the recommencement clause of T.C.A. § 28-105 in Rule 3, the framers of the rule also intended to retain the prior method of recommencement. Rather, we think that it is more logical to hold, as did the District Court, that a change in the method of commencement of an action correspondingly carries with it a change in the method of recommencement.
Thus, while under former Tennessee practice in which actions at law were commenced by the issuance of summons, recommencement under Section 28-105 then required only the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. THOMPSON
...see Heathcoat v. Potts, 790 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1025, 108 S.Ct. 747, 98 L.Ed.2d 761 (1988); Bates v. Harp, 573 F.2d 930 (6th Cir. 1978); Allman v. Hanley, 302 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1962), we do not intend implicitly to foreclose the possibility of a different int......
-
Koprowski v. Baker
...U.S.C. § 8132 ; Gustafson v. Adkins, 803 F.3d 883, 890 (7th Cir.2015) (collecting cases reaching this result, including Bates v. Harp, 573 F.2d 930, 934–35 (6th Cir.1978) ).Thus, the IACA's cross-reference to the FECA does not exclude the possibility that a prisoner may have a cause of acti......
-
Jaffee v. U.S.
...ago by the Veterans Disability Compensation and Survivors Benefits Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-295).43 See, e. g., Bates v. Harp, 573 F.2d 930, 934-36 (6th Cir. 1978); Marion v. United States, 214 F.Supp. 320 (D.Md.1963). See also Annotation, 21 A.L.R.3d 845, 850-52 and references noted ther......
-
Gustafson v. Adkins
...F.2d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir.1986) (following Allman, and noting that FECA “is silent on the matter of co-employee suits”); Bates v. Harp, 573 F.2d 930, 935 (6th Cir.1978) (holding that “[e]ven though we are not persuaded that co-employee suits are advisable as a matter of policy, in light of ......