Locklear v. Bergman & Beving Ab

• Decision Date: 07 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-2506.,04-2506.
• Citation: 457 F.3d 363
• Parties: Aaron LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERGMAN & BEVING AB; Luna Ab, Defendants-Appellees, and Hassleholms Mekanisk, Ab, and or its successor or assign, purchaser or surviving legal entity; A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954; Unknown Seller of A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954; Unknown Distributor, A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954; Unknown Importer, A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

457 F.3d 363

Aaron LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERGMAN & BEVING AB; Luna Ab, Defendants-Appellees, and Hassleholms Mekanisk, Ab, and or its successor or assign, purchaser or surviving legal entity; A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954; Unknown Seller of A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954; Unknown Distributor, A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954; Unknown Importer, A Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine Type 1P110/5 Serial # :954, Defendants.

No. 04-2506.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 22, 2006.

Decided August 7, 2006.

ARGUED: Daniel Joseph Shamy, John Michael Kotzker, Kotzker & Shamy, P.L., Pompano Beach, Florida, for Appellant. Matthew Paul Lalumia, Mudd, Harrison & Burch, L.L.P., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Douglas W. Biser, Mudd, Harrison & Burch, L.L.P., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILLIAMS and Judge GREGORY joined.

OPINION

FLOYD, District Judge.

Aaron Locklear (Locklear) brings this appeal, asserting that the district court erred when it dismissed his action against Luna AB (Luna) and Bergman & Beving AB (Bergman). The district court held that the suit was time-barred because the amended complaint, naming Luna and Bergman for the first time, did not relate back to the original complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3).

Locklear contends that the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint because Luna and Bergman were properly substituted for a mistakenly-named defendant and effectuated with service within a court-granted extension as set forth by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

We disagree and, for the reasons set forth below, affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

The parties agree on most of the facts relevant to this appeal. On December 20, 1999, Locklear's right hand became "degloved" while operating a metal fabrication machine during the course of his employment at Maryland Plastics, Inc. in Aberdeen, Maryland. (J.A. at 113.) Maryland's three-year limitations period covering tort claims applies to this case; however, due to a temporary tolling provision governing worker's compensation claims, the statute of limitations expired on or about February 20, 2003. Md.Code Ann., Labor and Employment § 9-902 (1999); J.A. at 115.

Locklear filed his original complaint on December 17, 2002, with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The original complaint named as defendants (1) Hassleholms Mekanisk AB (Hassleholms); (2) a Hassleholms Wire Roller Machine identified by serial number; and (3) "John Doe" defendants for the unknown seller, distributor, and importer of the machine. (J.A. at 6-7, 113.) At the time of Locklear's original filing, he stated that service of the summons would occur "at a later date." (J.A. at 14.) Locklear did not serve Hassleholms, the originally named defendant, within the 120-day period required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); however, on April 30, 2003, the district court, acting sua sponte, extended Locklear's service of process period to September 17, 2003. (J.A. at 14.)

On September 4, 2003, Locklear filed a motion requesting nine additional months in which to effectuate service. (J.A. at 15.) As the basis for his request, Locklear informed the court that he had only recently discovered that Luna and Bergman were the correct manufacturers of the machine and that Hassleholms, the originally-named defendant, was merely the city where the manufacturer was located. (J.A. at 15-16, 18.) The district court granted the motion, ordering that service be effected upon Luna and Bergman on or before June 17, 2004, and directed that an amended complaint be filed on or before October 10, 2003. (J.A. at 19.)

On October 9, 2003, Locklear filed his amended complaint, replacing the previously-named Hassleholms with newly-named Defendants Luna and Bergman. (J.A. at 20.) Locklear first contacted Luna and Bergman via electronic mail messages sent to their corporate officers on February 20, 2004. (J.A. at 53, 55.) On March 26, 2004, summonses were issued for Luna and Bergman, and process was served on Bergman and Luna on April 27, 2004, and April 28, 2004, respectively.

Luna and Bergman subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Locklear's action was barred by Maryland's three-year statute of limitations and that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland. The district court, without reaching the jurisdictional issue, granted the motion, holding that it failed to relate back to the original complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3). This appeal followed.

II.

The issue before us is whether an amended complaint filed after the statute of limitations expired but during a court-ordered extension of time for service of process, which adds a new party in place of a mistakenly-named party, relates back to the original complaint pursuant Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3). We review the district court's analysis of this question of law de novo. Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 192 (4th Cir.2002).

As already observed, under Maryland law, Locklear's products liability claim against Luna and Bergman is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (subject to extension under the worker's compensation scheme), which expired on February 20, 2003. Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2002). Thus, unless the amended complaint — filed after the statute of limitations ran — relates back to the date of the original filing, it will be barred by the statute of limitations and subject to dismissal. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that dismissal is the appropriate remedy when a claim is time-barred).

Locklear raises two arguments in support of his assertion that his amended complaint relates back pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3): (1) replacing Hassleholms with Luna and Bergman qualifies as a mistake pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3)(B); and (2) Luna and Bergman received timely notice and service of process under a Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2) court-granted service of process extension.¹ We reject his first argument and do not reach the second.²

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c), which governs name-changing amendments, provides in relevant part:

An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when

. . .

(2) 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, or

(3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.

The amended complaint in this case indisputably satisfies the first requirement of Rule 15(c)(3) because it simply adds the names of the newly-discovered defendants without altering the underlying cause of action stated in the original compliant. We therefore focus our attention solely on the application of Rule 15(c)(3)'s remaining requirements to Locklear's amended complaint, beginning with the requirement that Luna and Bergman "knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning" their identity, the action would have been brought against them.

Although Rule 15(c)(3)(B) speaks broadly of a "mistake concerning the identity of the proper party," we have, in analyzing the scope of this rule, distinguished between mistake due to a lack of knowledge and mistake due to a misnomer. In so doing, we have not viewed lack of knowledge of the proper party to be sued as a "mistake" as that term is used in Rule 15(c)(3)(B). In the principal case on point, Western Contracting Corp. v. Bechtel Corp, we adopted the Seventh Circuit's holding that

Rule 15(c)(2)[³] permits an amendment to relate back where that party is chargeable with knowledge of the mistake, but it does not permit relation back where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party.

885 F.2d 1196, 1201 (4th Cir.1989) (quoting Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir.1980)) (internal citations omitted). We have also noted that "Rule 15 has its limits, and courts properly exercise caution when reviewing an application of the rule which would increase a defendant's exposure to liability." Intown Properties Management, Inc. v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 271 F.3d 164, 170 (4th Cir.2001); see also Rennie v. Omniflight Helicopters, Inc., No. 97-1524, 1998 WL 743678 (4th Cir. Oct.23, 1998). Rule 15, moreover, must be applied especially cautiously when an amendment that "drags a new defendant into a case" is proposed. Intown Properties, 271 F.3d at 170.

Our interpretation of Rule 15(c)(3)(B) finds support in the jurisprudence of other circuits. For example, in Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, the D.C. Circuit held that "a potential defendant who has not been named in a lawsuit by the time the statute of limitations has run is entitled to repose — unless it is or should be apparent to the person that he is the beneficiary of a mere slip of the pen [.]" 107 F.3d 913, 918 (D.C.Cir.1997). Likewise, the First Circuit, in adopting the same rationale we relied upon in Bechtel, found that a mistake does not relate back "where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party." Wilson v. United States Gov't, 23 F.3d 559, 563 (1st Cir.1994) (quoting Wood,...