Ricard v. Birch
| Decision Date | 04 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--2377,74--2377 |
| Citation | 529 F.2d 214 |
| Parties | Irene RICARD, as Administratrix of the Estate of Larry Anthony Ricard, Deceased, and George E. Mosley, as Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Larry Anthony Ricard, Appellants, v. Michael S. BIRCH, HG. Battery-First Battalion, Troop Marines, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Michael P. Flanagan, New Bern, N.C. (Ward, Tucker, Ward & Smith, New Bern, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Richard E. Regan, Rochester, N.Y. (Moore, Diedrick & Whitaker, Rocky Mount, N.C., on brief), for appellants.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, * Senior Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff claims that the district court improperly dismissed this wrongful death action as barred by the statute of limitations. Because of the Tolling provision of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act, we agree.
Plaintiff, Ricard, is the New York administratrix of the estate of her son, who died on September 6, 1971, as a result of an automobile accident that occurred in Ethiopia on August 25, 1971. At the time of the accident the decedent was riding in a car driven by the defendant, a fellow Marine. This action was filed on August 24, 1973, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, while the defendant was stationed at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. He has since left the Marine Corps and now resides in California.
The district court, in two unchallenged orders, held that North Carolina choice of law rules require application of the Ethiopian wrongful death act, that North Carolina, New York, and Ethiopia all have two year statutes of limitations for wrongful death actions and that suit may not be maintained in North Carolina by a foreign administrator. The plaintiff was thereafter allowed to procure the appointment of an ancillary resident administrator and to amend her complaint to include him as a party. In a third order, however, the court held that the appointment and amendment did not relate back to the filing of the complaint. This result was reached by application of the North Carolina rule, most recently stated in Johnson v. Trust Co., 22 N.C.App. 8, 205 S.E.2d 353 (1974), that an action filed by a non-resident administrator is a nullity, to which there can be no relation back. The court concluded that it was required to dismiss the suit as untimely because the ancillary administrator was appointed after the expiration of the two year statute of limitations.
The plaintiff has appealed, claiming alternatively that Rule 15(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., allows relation back notwithstanding the mandate of Rule 17(b) to follow state law regarding a party's capacity to sue, and that the statute of limitations was tolled by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 525. We hold that the statute was tolled, and do not reach the question whether Rule 15(c) displaces the contrary state rule.
The tolling statute, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 525 provides in pertinent part:
'The period of military service shall not be included in computing any period . . . limited by any law . . . for the bringing of (an) action . . . in any court . . . against any person in military service . . . whether such cause of action or the right or privilege to institute such action or proceeding shall have accrued prior to or during the period of such service . . .'
It is uncontroverted that both the defendant and plaintiff's decedent were members of the United States Marine Corps on August 25, 1971, the date of the fatal accident. The defendant remained in the Marine Corps until about February 25, 1974. The statute plainly requires the court, in computing the time limitation, to disregard the two and one-half years spent by the defendant in the armed forces after the accident.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. Kramer Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Andrews
...by any party." (Quoting Washington Gas Light Co. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 4th Cir., 438 F.2d 248, 250-51), Ricard v. Birch, 529 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1975).24 Kramer Manufacturing also would have us hold that intentional copying establishes the second prong under section 43(a), li......
-
Walters v. Nadell
...of justice" that would permit appellate intervention. See Napier, supra at 233, 414 N.W.2d 862. 31. See, e.g., Ricard v. Birch, 529 F.2d 214 (C.A.4, 1975); Kenney v. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc., 6 Ill.App.3d 983, 286 N.E.2d 619 32. See Abela v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 603, 607, 677 N.W......
-
Miller v. US, Civ. A. No. 91-268-N.
...of limitations during the time period when either the plaintiff or the defendant is a member of the armed services. Ricard v. Birch, 529 F.2d 214, 216-217 (4th Cir.1975) ("parallel purpose of the Act is to protect the rights of individuals having causes of action against the armed forces").......
-
Bickford v. United States
...service; once that circumstance is shown, the period of limitation is automatically tolled for the duration of service. Ricard v. Birch, 529 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 1975). We do not accept the Government's argument that the court should ignore the express language of § There is not ambiguity in ......
-
Putative father registry deadlines and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
...41 N.Y.S.2d 15K 165 (N.Y. Misc. 1943)); see 50 U.S.C. Appx. § 502(1) (2007). (27) Conroy, 507 U.S. at 515. (28) Id. (29) Ricard v. Birch, 529 F.2d 214, 217 (4th Cir. 1975) (while there is no immunity from suit. the tolling statute is unconditional); Trew v. Standard, 33 So. 2d 426, 429 (La.......