Brennan v. Lermer Corp.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. C-83-5803-MHP.,C-83-5803-MHP.
• Citation: 626 F. Supp. 926
• Parties: Colienne (Auxier) BRENNAN, aka Colienne Auxier, Plaintiff, v. LERMER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

626 F. Supp. 926

Colienne (Auxier) BRENNAN, aka Colienne Auxier, Plaintiff, v. LERMER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

No. C-83-5803-MHP.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

January 8, 1986.

Robert E. Cartwright, Jr., Karen E. Scholer, Cartwright, Sucherman & Slobodin, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

Russell Leibson, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, Martin T. Ruane, Kathleen Harrington, Barfield, Dryden & Ruane, Michael G. Lowe, Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen, Patrick Wilson, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.

OPINION

PATEL, District Judge.

Plaintiff Colienne Brennan filed this personal injury action in state court naming Lermer Corporation ("Lermer") and a number of "Does" as defendants. Lermer answered the complaint and subsequently removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds. After removal, and more than one year after plaintiff's claim accrued, she discovered the true identity of a number of potential defendants and amended her complaint to substitute these defendants for the "Does" named in her original complaint. One of the newly discovered defendants, Fairchild Industries, Inc. ("Fairchild"), has moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it is barred by California's one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Plaintiff contends that under the California pleading scheme permitting Doe defendants, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 474, the statute of limitations was effectively extended for three years from the date she filed the original complaint and, therefore, her amended complaint against Fairchild was timely. Fairchild responds that this case is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) regarding the relation-back of amendments, not by the California Doe pleading provisions. Because plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of Rule 15(c), Fairchild argues, her amended complaint does not "relate back" to the date of the original complaint and, therefore, is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

For the reasons given below, the court concludes that the California Doe pleading scheme is state "substantive law" which must be applied in this diversity action. Because under California law plaintiff's amended complaint was timely filed, Fairchild's motion to dismiss is denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is employed as a flight attendant by Trans World Airlines ("TWA"). In the course of her employment, plaintiff uses an inflight food and beverage service cart to serve passengers on board the aircraft. These carts have a horizontal deadman brake handle which apparently some flight attendants find difficult to operate. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of using the service carts, she now suffers from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, an ailment which plaintiff describes as a "cumulative trauma injury, which affects the nerves of the wrists, resulting in loss of sensation and impaired use of hands."

Plaintiff alleges that she first noticed symptoms of the ailment in April or early May 1982 and was diagnosed as suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome on July 27, 1982, at which time she first began to suspect that her symptoms resulted from use of the inflight service carts. On March 7, 1983 she was informed by TWA that "Lermer Corporation" manufactured the carts used on board flights.

On March 18, 1983 plaintiff filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court naming as defendants the Lermer Corporation, Black Corporation, White Corporation and One Hundred "Does." The complaint alleged that each of the defendants was involved in the design, manufacture and sale of food and beverage service carts and set forth causes of action for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, strict products liability and false representation.¹ Defendant Lermer Corporation filed an answer in state court and on December 6, 1983 removed the case to this court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff alleges she first learned in April 1984 that defendant Fairchild was involved in the manufacture of inflight service carts. At that time plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, specifically naming Fairchild and others as defendants and dropping from the complaint the Black and White Corporations and the One Hundred Doe defendants.² Plaintiff served Fairchild with a copy of the First Amended Complaint in May 1984 and Fairchild has participated in the litigation since that time.

In March 1985 it was discovered that plaintiff had filed the First Amended Complaint without stipulation or leave of court in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Consequently, on March 14, 1985 the court ordered that plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be stricken and deemed lodged with the court only. On April 25, 1985 the court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint, which plaintiff filed and served upon Fairchild on May 10, 1985.

DISCUSSION

Fairchild moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that it was filed after the applicable statute of limitations had run. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340(3)³ provides that any action for personal injury must be commenced within one year. This one-year limitations period applies to all personal injury actions, including those based on negligence, products liability and breach of warranty. See, e.g., Sevilla v. Stearns-Roger, Inc., 101 Cal.App.3d 608, 610, 161 Cal.Rptr. 700 (1980); Howe v. Pioneer Manufacturing Co., 262 Cal.App.2d 330, 339, 68 Cal.Rptr. 617 (1968).

Under § 474, however, a plaintiff who does not know the identity of a particular defendant at the time of injury may file a complaint within one year naming a fictitious defendant and then amend the complaint when the defendant's identity is discovered.⁴ Once the original complaint is filed, the plaintiff has up to three years to identify and serve any of the Doe defendants. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 583.210.⁵ The Legislative Committee Comment explains that § 583.210 "applies to a defendant sued by a fictitious name from the time the complaint is filed." Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 583.210 legislative committee comment (West Supp.1985). State case law supports this explanation by holding that where a plaintiff files a complaint naming a fictitious defendant and within three years amends the complaint to substitute the defendant's true name, the defendant "is considered a party to the action from its commencement so that the statute of limitations stops running as of the date of the earlier pleading." Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 56 Cal.2d 596, 599, 15 Cal.Rptr. 817, 364 P.2d 681 (1961) (emphasis added). Thus, taken together, §§ 340(3), 474 and 583.210 provide the "functional equivalent" of a limitations period of up to four years, depending on when the original complaint is filed. Rumberg v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 424 F.Supp. 294, 297 (C.D.Cal.1976).

Plaintiff filed her original complaint on March 18, 1983, less than a year after she first noticed symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome and approximately eight months after she first began to suspect that her symptoms resulted from use of the inflight service carts. Her properly filed First Amended Complaint, substituting Fairchild for one of the Doe defendants, was filed and served upon Fairchild on May 10, 1985, well within the three years provided by § 583.210. Thus, under California law, plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was timely filed.

Fairchild argues, however, that Fed.R. Civ.Proc. 15(c)—not California law — governs this case and that under Rule 15(c) plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is untimely. Rule 15(c) provides, in pertinent part:

Whenever 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, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.

Rule 15(c) requires that the defendant receive notice of the action "within the period provided by law for commencing the action" — in this case, one year. Plaintiff apparently concedes that Fairchild did not receive notice of this action until May 1984 when plaintiff served Fairchild with the improperly filed First Amended Complaint.⁶ Therefore even assuming that plaintiff's action did not accrue until July 27, 1982 when she first began to suspect the connection between her injury and the service carts, Fairchild did not receive notice within one year as required under Rule 15(c).

Under California law plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was timely; under Rule 15(c) it was untimely. Thus the court's ruling on Fairchild's motion to dismiss will depend on which law applies.

I. California Law

It is, of course, well established that in diversity actions a federal court must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). State statutes of limitations are considered substantive law for purposes of the Erie doctrine, Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945); Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 746, 100 S.Ct. 1978, 1983, 64 L.Ed.2d 659 (1980); Nelson v. A.H. Robins Co., 515 F.Supp. 623, 625 (N.D.Cal.1981), as are those state provisions which are "an integral part" of the statute of limitations. Walker, 446 U.S. at 751-52, 100 S.Ct. at 1985-86; Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337...