Hunt v. Hamm

• Decision Date: 31 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. Civ. 15-960 SCY/WPL,Civ. 15-960 SCY/WPL
• Parties: LEE HUNT, as personal representative of the Estate of Ronald Jay Posner, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE HAMM, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

LEE HUNT, as personal representative of the Estate of Ronald Jay Posner, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE HAMM, et al. Defendants.

No. Civ. 15-960 SCY/WPL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

May 31, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Englander Transport, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) Plaintiff's wrongful death lawsuit. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF No. 21), invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)'s relation-back doctrine. Having reviewed the Motion, Response, and Reply (ECF No. 27), and otherwise being fully advised, the Court has decided to DENY the Motion for the reasons described below.

I. Background

Plaintiff's initial complaint for wrongful death and punitive damages alleged that the events giving rise to this action occurred on August 25, 2012, "when a truck owned by Defendant Englander [Transportation, Inc.] and operated by Defendant Hamm was involved in a fatal crash that killed Ronald Jay Posner." (ECF No. 1, Ex. A ¶ 5). On August 21, 2015, four days before the wrongful death statute of limitations expired, NMSA § 41-2-2, Plaintiff commenced this action in the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico naming Englander Transportation, Inc. and Lawrence Hamm as Defendants. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A). Defendant Hamm removed the action to this Court on October 26, 2015. (ECF No. 1). Shortly thereafter, Defendant Hamm filed his answer in which he admitted that "a truck owned by Englander Transport and operated by Defendant Hamm was involved in a motor vehicle accident involving Ronald J. Posner." (ECF No. 4, ¶ 4) (emphasis added).

On October 29, 2015, Englander Transportation filed a motion to dismiss alleging that it was improperly named as a defendant in this action as it did not own the truck in question, did not employ Defendant Hamm, and was not even in existence on the date of the motor vehicle accident. (ECF No. 7). In lieu of filing a response, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on November 5, 2015, in which it removed Englander Transportation as a party and substituted Englander Transport, Inc. in its place as a named Defendant. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff served Defendant Englander Transport with the amended complaint on November 10, 2015. (ECF No. 15).

I. Analysis

As a general principle, it is a well-settled that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction "applies federal procedural law and state substantive law." Jones v. UPS, 674 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, Defendant Englander Transport seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's wrongful death claims under the three-year New Mexico statute of limitations. This is a substantive affirmative defense. See Burnham v. Humphrey Hospitality Reit Trust, Inc., 403 F.3d 709, 712 (10th Cir. 2005) ("A federal court sitting in diversity applies state law for statute of limitations purposes."); Aldrich v. McCulloch Properties, 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 (10th Cir. 1980) (the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense). Because the relevant facts are undisputed, the Court must grant Defendant's Motion if "the dates given in the Complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished." Aldrich, 627 F.2d at 1041; see also Glaser v. City &County of Denver, 557 F. App'x 689, 698 (10th Cir. 2014) ("[A] statute of limitations question may be appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss.").

The answer to this question depends on a proper application of the relation-back doctrine. Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant Englander Transport was not named as a Defendant in this lawsuit until after the wrongful death statute of limitations expired. Normally, this would necessitate a finding that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Englander Transport are time-barred. Plaintiff maintains, however, that the amended complaint naming Defendant Englander Transport "relates back" to the timely-filed original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) and should be treated as it if was filed on August 21, 2015 within the statute of limitations. In other words, Plaintiff contends that the relation-back doctrine erases any potential ill-effects of the failure to properly name Defendant Englander Transport in the original complaint. Defendant disagrees; it argues that state, not federal law controls and that the New Mexico relation-back doctrine does not apply under the facts of this case.

A. Choice-of-Law

Both sides present reasonable, but contrary arguments regarding whether federal or state law governs the potential relation-back of Plaintiff's amended complaint. Defendant argues that the relation-back doctrine is a matter of substantive law because it has a direct bearing on the functioning of a state's statute of limitations. ECF No. 27 at 1-2. In cases where the relation-back doctrine applies, the filing of an earlier complaint is treated as the commencement of the lawsuit for statute of limitations purposes, effectively enlarging the statute of limitations period. This has clear substantive implications. See Burnham v. Humphrey Hospitality Reit Trust, Inc., 403 F.3d 709, 712 (10th Cir. Kan. 2005) ("[S]tate law determines when an action is commenced for statute of limitations purposes."). Normally, the right to maintain a state law cause of action in federalcourt is coextensive with the right to maintain the action in state court. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 746 (1980) (a federal court cannot give a state law cause of action "longer life" than it would have enjoyed in state court).

However, as Plaintiff points out, Defendant's arguments have not found purchase with the majority of courts. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits have all held that the relation-back provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which possess a procedural character, are applicable in diversity actions. See Morel v. Daimler-Chrysler AG, 565 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2009) ("Rule 15(c) applies in a diversity case notwithstanding the incidence of a more restrictive state rule."); Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 611 (4th Cir. 1980) (applying Rule 15(c) in the face of a contrary state rule); Johansen v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 810 F.2d 1377, 1380 (5th Cir. 1987) ("Rule 15(c) is a truly procedural rule . . ."); Brown v. E.W. Bliss Co., 818 F.2d 1405, 1409 (8th Cir. Mo. 1987) (same); Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730, 735-736 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 15 allows relation back even when the original claim is itself time barred" by the state statute of limitations). In reaching this conclusion, the circuit courts have been strongly influenced by the Supreme Court's admonition that:

When a situation is covered by one of the Federal Rules, the question facing the court is a far cry from the typical, relatively unguided Erie choice: the court has been instructed to apply the Federal Rule, and can refuse to do so only if the Advisory Committee, this Court, and Congress erred in their prima facie judgment that the Rule in question transgresses neither the terms of the Enabling Act nor constitutional restrictions.

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 471 (1965). Unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has not resolved whether this standard mandates the application of Rule 15(c) in diversity cases. Although numerous Tenth Circuit cases have applied Rule 15(c) relation-back principles to diversity-based claims, these cases largely appear to have been driven by the presentation of theparties (i.e. in these cases, it is not clear that the parties disagreed about the controlling nature of Rule 15 so the choice-of-law issue was not squarely and unavoidably before the court). See Burnham, 403 F.3d at 715 (citing Rule 15(c) rather than equivalent state law rule when addressing relation-back argument in diversity lawsuit); Prince Alexander v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 952 F.2d 1215, 1226-1227 (10th Cir. 1991) (same); Farner v. Firema's Fund Ins. Co., 748 F.2d 551, 553 (10th Cir. 1984) (same). In fact, in 2013, the Tenth Circuit indicated that the preeminence of Rule 15(c) was still an open question. Dale K. Barker Co., P.C. v. Plaza, 541 F. App'x 810, 814 (10th Cir. 2013) (noting that there "may be considerable uncertainty whether a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction is free to apply the relation-back principle embodied in Rule 15(c) instead of a conflicting state rule on the subject") (internal citation omitted). Luckily, this Court need not resolve this dispute, because the outcome of the case is the same whether state or federal law controls; under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) and New Mexico Rule of Civil Procedure 01-015(C), Plaintiff is entitled to take advantage of the relation-back doctrine.

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), an amended complaint relates back to the date of the original pleading in three circumstances, including whenever:

the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if [the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or attempted to be set out--in the original pleading] and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and

(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c)(1)(C). Defendant does not deny that Plaintiff's amended complaint falls within the purview of this rule. The amended complaint sets forth the same facts and claims as the original complaint with only one minor correction - the amended complaint contains the correct name of Defendant Hamm's...