Ex Parte Atkinson
| Decision Date | 29 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | 1051437. |
| Citation | 976 So.2d 1001 |
| Parties | Ex parte Dwayne ATKINSON In re: Clarence Heard and Janice Heard v. APV North America, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Driver, Glenn E. Ireland, and Debra Hornbuckle of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
R. Rick DiGiorgio and Craig P. Niedenthal of Cory, Watson, Crowder & DeGaris, P.C., Birmingham, for respondents.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Clarence Heard claims he was injured on November 23, 2002, in an accident involving a positive flow continuous fermenter manufactured by APV North America, Inc. ("the APV tank"), while he was employed by Ventura Foods, L.L.C. On November 22, 2004, Heard and his wife, Janice, sued APV North America and others, including several fictitiously named defendants, claiming that Clarence's injury was caused by the negligence of the defendants in designing, manufacturing, and installing the APV tank.
On February 15, 2006, the Heards filed an amended complaint, substituting Dwayne Atkinson for one of the fictitiously named defendants, claiming that Atkinson was one of the employees or supervisors at Ventura Foods who had negligently installed the APV tank. Atkinson filed a motion asking the trial court to dismiss him as a defendant because, he says, the statute of limitations on the Heards' claim had expired before the Heards named him as a defendant. The trial court denied Atkinson's motion to dismiss, and Atkinson petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss him as a defendant.
Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 761 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Ala.2000). Furthermore, this Court has held that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle by which to challenge the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment based on a statute-of-limitations defense when "the undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence in identifying the fictitiously named defendant as the party the plaintiff intended to sue." Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531, 537 (Ala. 1999). See also Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc., 916 So.2d 594 (Ala.2005).
The Heards filed their complaint on November 22, 2004, one day before the two-year statute of limitations expired. Atkinson was not listed as a defendant at that time; rather, they listed several fictitiously named defendants and Atkinson was substituted for one of those fictitiously named defendants on February 15, 2006, well after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations.
Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:
"When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in the party's pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when that party's true name is discovered, the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name."
This Court has stated on numerous occasions that in order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h), that is, in order for the amended complaint with the defendant's true name to relate back to the original complaint with the fictitious name, the plaintiff must establish (1) that the plaintiff was ignorant of the identity of the fictitiously named party, in the sense of having no knowledge at the time the complaint was filed that the party subsequently named was in fact the party intended to be sued, Columbia Engineering International, Ltd. v. Espey, 429 So.2d 955 (Ala. 1983); and (2) that the plaintiff used due diligence to discover the defendant's true identity before filing the original complaint, Fulmer v. Clark Equipment Co., 654 So.2d 45 (Ala.1995).
Atkinson argues that Clarence Heard knew his identity and his involvement with the installation of the APV tank before the Heards filed their original complaint. He cites the following in the deposition given by Clarence Heard on December 6, 2005:
Atkinson argues that Heard's answers in this deposition establish that Heard knew Atkinson's true identity long before the Heards filed their original complaint and that, even if there is doubt as to whether he knew Atkinson's exact name at that time, he knew enough about Atkinson that with due diligence he could have determined Atkinson's true identity.
The Heards argue that Clarence Heard did not know Atkinson. They note that in Clarence's answers to interrogatories filed on October 19, 2005, he identified Dwayne Atkinson as "Dewayne Adkins." They also cite testimony of other employees of Ventura Foods who stated that they did not know Atkinson. This, however, does not demonstrate the ignorance of the defendant's identity that Columbia Engineering and other cases require. Even if it did establish ignorance, it falls far short of establishing that the Heards could not have learned Atkinson's true name with due diligence, as Fulmer requires. Certainly, if they knew that someone with a name similar to "Dewayne Adkins" worked as a supervisor for Ventura Foods, with due diligence they could have learned Atkinson's true identity.
The Heards also argue that Atkinson has failed to demonstrate that he has suffered any prejudice from their failure to name him as a party in the earlier complaint, because, according to the Heards, he was aware of his participation in the events underlying their action. However, the cases cited by the Heards do not support their position. In Denney v. Serio, 446 So.2d 7 (A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGathey v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc.
... ... Ex parte Elba Gen. Hosp. & Nursing Home, Inc., 828 So.2d 308, 311 (Ala.2001). “ ‘To maintain a medical-malpractice action, the plaintiff ... R. Civ. P., in regard to fictitious-party practice under Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P. Ex parte Atkinson, 976 So.2d 1001, 1003 (Ala.2007). McGathey concedes that the medical records she obtained contained the names and positions of ... ...
-
Barrett v. Roman
...filing the original complaint, Fulmer v. Clark Equipment Co., 654 So.2d 45 (Ala.1995).’ "3 So.3d at 831–32 (quoting Ex parte Atkinson, 976 So.2d 1001, 1003 (Ala.2007) ). "If the plaintiff knows the identity of the fictitiously named parties or possesses sufficient facts to lead to the disco......
-
State v. Brantley Land, L.L.C.
... ... 976 So.2d 1001 ... Ex parte Simmons, 791 So.2d 371, 381 (Ala.2000) ("Rule 54(b) applies only to entire claims, not to orders relating to the recoverability of some, but not all, ... ...
-
Dulin v. Ne. Ala. Reg'l Med. Ctr. (In re Nail)
...complaint. Toomey v. Foxboro Co., 528 So.2d 302 (Ala.1988).”Weber v. Freeman, 3 So.3d 825, 831–32 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Atkinson, 976 So.2d 1001, 1003 (Ala.2007) (emphasis added)). “The due-diligence standard, as stated in Davis v. Mims, 510 So.2d 227, 229 (Ala.1987), ‘is whether the......