Carmouche v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Decision Date | 07 June 1978 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. LV 77-192 RDF. |
Citation | 450 F. Supp. 1361 |
Parties | Robert A. CARMOUCHE, Plaintiff, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, British Steel Corporation, Inc., a New York Corporation, Triangle Steel & Supply Co., a Delaware Corporation and Does II through V, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Steffen & Simmons, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff.
Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Las Vegas, Nev., for Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Defendant Bethlehem Steel moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the suit against it was commenced more than two years following plaintiff's injury and is therefore barred by the statute of limitations.
Plaintiff was injured on or about July 10, 1975, in his employment while cutting a steel "I" beam into two "T" beams. On July 8, 1977, plaintiff filed his complaint in state court against various steel companies and Does I through V. Defendant Bethlehem was not named.
On September 12, 1977, after the two-year statute of limitations, NRS 11.190(4)(e), which this Court holds is applicable, would have run, plaintiff amended his complaint and substituted defendant Bethlehem for Doe I. Thereafter, on October 26, 1977, defendant Bethlehem removed the case to this court.
In defendant Bethlehem's motion for summary judgment, it argues that under FRCP 15(c) the complaint could not be amended because the criteria set forth under this section has not been met. FRCP 15(c) reads:
The Nevada rule, NRCP 15(c) reads:
In addition, under NRCP 10(a):
"A party whose name is not known may be designated by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading may be amended accordingly."
Although NRCP 10(a) has not been explicitly interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court, it has been cited several times and discussed in dicta. See Knight v. Witco Chemical Co., 89 Nev. 586, 517 P.2d 792; Hill v. Summa Corporation, 90 Nev. 79, 518 P.2d 1094; and Garvey v. Clark County, 91 Nev. 127, 532 P.2d 269. In Hill v. Summa, at 82-83, 518 P.2d 1094, a footnote explains that the purpose of Rule 10(a) is to enable the plaintiff to bring suit before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
This Court faced a somewhat similar situation in Williams v. Avis Transport of Canada, Ltd., 57...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lutz v. CITY OF YORK, PA.
...has been commonly understood in prior cases. In those actions travel has typically referred to migration. See Carmouche v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 450 F.Supp. 1361 (D.Nev.1978). Nevertheless, plaintiff has asserted a liberty interest which has been recognized by this court in the past. In By......