Nettles v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 4:18-CV-4102-LLP

• Decision Date: 30 November 2020
• Docket Number: 4:18-CV-4102-LLP
• Parties: ANGELA NETTLES, Plaintiff, v. HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., a business corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware; RIVER GREENWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a/ HILTON GARDEN INN, a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota; MAIN AND MAIN, L.L.C., a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota; DOES 1 through 10; ROE CORPORATIONS 11 through 20; and ABC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES 21 through 30, Defendants, and MAIN AND MAIN, L.L.C., a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota; HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., a business corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware; RIVER GREENWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a/ HILTON GARDEN INN, a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota, Cross-Claimants, v. LLOYD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a business corporation in the State of South Dakota; Cross-Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. HEARTLAND GLASS COMPANY, LLC, a business corporation in the State of South Dakota, Third-Party Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

ANGELA NETTLES, Plaintiff,

v.

HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., a business corporation incorporated in the State

of Delaware; RIVER GREENWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a/ HILTON

GARDEN INN, a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota; MAIN AND MAIN,

L.L.C., a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota; DOES 1 through 10;

ROE CORPORATIONS 11 through 20; and ABC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES 21 through 30, Defendants,

and

MAIN AND MAIN, L.L.C., a limited liability company in the State of South Dakota; HILTON

WORLDWIDE, INC., a business corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware; RIVER

GREENWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a/ HILTON GARDEN INN, a limited liability

company in the State of South Dakota, Cross-Claimants, v. LLOYD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a business corporation

in the State of South Dakota; Cross-Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. HEARTLAND GLASS COMPANY, LLC, a business corporation

in the State of South Dakota, Third-Party Defendant.

4:18-CV-4102-LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

November 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD PARTY AND AMEND CAPTION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Angela Nettles's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to Add Party and Amend Caption. Doc. 52. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit stems from injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered on August 28, 2015, during her stay at the Hilton Garden Inn Sioux Falls when a glass barn-style door separating the master bedroom from the living room separated from a sliding rod and fell forward, pulling Plaintiff to the ground and shattering into pieces. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 5, 6.

Plaintiff's initial complaint was filed on August 20, 2018, and named the following defendants: 1) Hilton Worldwide, Inc. ("Hilton Worldwide") which was described as the parent corporation of Hilton Garden Inn and the entity that owns and controls the Hilton Garden Inn Sioux Falls, South Dakota; 2) River Greenway Hospitality, LLC ("River Greenway") d/b/a Hilton Garden Inn; 3) Main and Main, L.L.C. ("Main and Main"), the property management for the Hilton Garden Inn Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 201 E. 8^th Street; 4) DOES 1 through 10, ROE Corporations 11 through 20, and ABC Limited Liability Companies 21 through 30. Doc. 1. In the initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged that "Defendants were negligent in the selection, placement, installation, maintenance, and management of the sliding glass barn door in the hotel room. The sliding glass barn door was a dangerous condition which Defendants should have remedied and/or warned Plaintiff of prior to Plaintiff's injury . . . Defendants failed to exercise due care in the maintenance of the hotel room and keeping the hotel room in a reasonably safe condition." Doc. 1, ¶ 8.

On March 1, 2019, the parties filed a Stipulation to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint and Amend Case Caption, seeking to add Lloyd Construction as a defendant which was granted by theCourt. Docs. 15, 16. On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims against Lloyd Construction. Doc. 26.

On April 2, 2019, Defendants Hilton Worldwide, River Greenway, and Main and Main filed a cross-claim against Lloyd Construction alleging that it constructed the Hilton Garden Inn at issue in this matter and that if these defendants are adjudged to be liable, liability would arise from Lloyd Construction's construction of the Hilton Garden Inn. Doc. 22, ¶¶ 5, 7. In Lloyd Construction's Answer to the Cross-Claim, Lloyd Construction admitted that it served as the general contractor for the construction of the Hilton Garden Inn, but denied that it personally supplied or installed the glass door at issue in this case. Doc. 27, ¶ 5.

On November 25, 2019, Lloyd Construction filed a Motion for Leave to Add Party, Amend Answer to Crossclaim, and Amend Caption to add Heartland Glass Company, LLC, as a cross-defendant. Doc. 35. In the proposed Amended Answer, Lloyd Construction alleges that should it be determined to be liable to Plaintiff, its liability arises only from the primary acts and omissions of Heartland Glass. Doc. 35-1. On January 2, 2020, the parties stipulated to Lloyd Construction's Motion, Doc. 37, and the Motion was granted by Order of the Court, Doc. 38. In Heartland's Answer to Lloyd Construction's Cross-Claim, it asserts a Counterclaim, alleging that should Heartland be determined to be liable to the Plaintiff, its liability arises only from the acts and omissions of Lloyd Construction Company in the construction of the Hilton Garden Inn. Doc. 45.

On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second¹ Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings to add Lloyd Construction as a defendant which is presently pending before the Court. Doc. 52. Plaintiff states that her expert has revealed that the installer of the glass barn door at issue was negligent in failing to recognize the danger presented by the design and installation method of the door. Doc. 53 at 4. Plaintiff states that Lloyd Construction's potential liability to Plaintiff is based on its association with the installation of the glass barn-style door that caused Plaintiff's injuries. Doc. 53 at 4. Lloyd Construction, in its capacity as Cross-Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, has filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. Doc. 54.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A timely² motion to amend a party's pleadings is ordinarily governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When a party can no longer amend its pleading as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amendment is allowed "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although leave to amend the complaint it typically freely given, whether to permit amendment of the complaint or addition of parties is committed to the court's discretion. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

A court may deny a motion for leave to amend if there has been undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive by the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment. Moses.com Secs., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005). A proposed amendment to a pleading may be denied as "futile" if it could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Cornelia I. Crosswell GST Trust v. Possis Med., Inc., 519 F.3d 778, 782 (8th Cir. 2008). A limitations defense may be asserted in a motion to dismiss "when it appears from the face of the complaint³ itself that the limitation period has run." Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Enervations, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 380 F.3d 1066, 1069 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that the proposed amendment was futile because even if amended, the proposed claim would still be time-barred). In determining whether a statute of limitations defense is apparent on the face of the complaint, a court is limited to the materials properly before it on a motion to dismiss, which, in addition to the complaint, may include "matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned." Miller v. RedwoodToxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)); see Noble Sys. Corp. v. Alorica Cent., LLC, 543 F.3d 978, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2008) ("Although our cases require the defense to be apparent on the face of the complaint, this means simply that the district court is limited to the material properly before it on a motion to dismiss. . . ."). In addition, a court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant. Blankenship v. USA Truck, Inc., 601 F.3d 852, 853 (8th Cir. 2010).

DISCUSSION

As a federal court sitting in diversity, the court will apply the substantive law of the forum state, including the state statutes of limitations. Paracelsus Health Corp. v. Philips Med. Sys., 384 F.3d 492, 495 (8th Cir. 2004). Looking at the proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's personal injury claim against Lloyd Construction accrued on August 20, 2018—the day she allegedly sustained injuries from the accident involving the glass barn-style door. Shippen v. Parrott, 506 N.W.2d 82, 85-86 (S.D. 1993) (stating that under South Dakota law, a cause of action for a personal injury claim accrues when the offense occurred, not when the offense is discovered); Koenig v. Lambert, 527 N.W.2d 903, 905 (S.D. 1995) (concluding that under SDCL 15-2-14, "the three year period starts to run from the last occurrence of tortious conduct, rather than three years from the discovery of harm"). Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that she had three years from this date to file her cause of action. See SDCL 15-2-4 (stating that an action for personal injury can be commenced only within three years after a cause of action accrued).

The original complaint in this matter, which did not include Lloyd Construction as a defendant, was filed on August 20, 2018—just 8 days before the three-year statute of limitations ran for a personal injury case in South Dakota. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend to add a personal injury claim against Lloyd Construction was not filed until September 15, 2020—well after the statute of limitations governing this claim had expired. Accordingly, unless the claims against Lloyd Construction in the proposed amended complaint relate back to August 20, 2018, when the initial...