Rumberg v. Weber Aircraft Corp.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1976
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 75-797-HP.
• Citation: 424 F. Supp. 294
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Katherine E. RUMBERG, Individually, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEBER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a California Corporation, et al., Defendants.

424 F. Supp. 294

Katherine E. RUMBERG, Individually, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEBER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a California Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 75-797-HP.

United States District Court, C. D. California.

November 17, 1976.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mason H. Rose, V, Nichols & Rose, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

Robert D. Brill, Brill, Hunt, DeBuys & Burby, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Weber Aircraft, Div. of Walter Kidde & Co., Inc.

Philip L. Johnson, William G. Tucker, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Plessey Inc.

Forrest R. Cogswell, Lillick, McHose & Charles, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Automatic Connector, Inc.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) BASED ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

PREGERSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Katherine Rumberg, sues for the wrongful death of her husband, Capt. Robert R. Rumberg, USAF, killed on March 19, 1974, in the crash of a U.S. Air Force jet. She alleges that his death was caused by the malfunction of the aircraft's cockpit ejection system.

On March 3, 1975, Mrs. Rumberg filed a wrongful death complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Weber Aircraft Corporation and Walter Kidde and Company. The next day, March 4, 1975, she filed this federal court action against the same parties. At the time of these filings, Mrs. Rumberg was unaware of the identity of the parties responsible for the malfunctioning of one of the essential components in the ejection system. Therefore, pursuant to California's Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 474,¹ in her state action she alleged the liability of fictitious "Doe" defendants. Because our local rule 4(j)² prohibits the clerk of this court from accepting complaints that name fictitious parties, Mrs. Rumberg's federal complaint did not name any "Does."

When Mrs. Rumberg discovered the identity of the corporations that she believes inherited, through various reorganizations and acquisitions, the liabilities and obligations of the original manufacturer of the defective component, she amended her complaints in both the state and federal actions. Accordingly, Plessey Incorporated and Automatic Connector, Inc. (Plessey and Automatic) were substituted for defendants Does One and Two in the state lawsuit on June 24, 1976, and were joined in this action on July 8, 1976, by the filing of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The matter is now before the court on Plessey's and Automatic's motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that joinder of these defendants in the second amended complaint is barred by California's statute of limitations.

California's CCP § 340(3) provides a one-year statute of limitations for wrongful death.³ When, however, a plaintiff is ignorant of the identity of a party responsible for the wrongful death of another, this time limit may be extended, as to the unknown defendant, by naming him as a "Doe" in the complaint. Pursuant to California's CCP § 581a,⁴ the plaintiff then has three years to discover the identity of the unknown defendant and serve him with the complaint. Upon discovery of defendant's identity, plaintiff may amend the complaint to substitute the defendant's true name for the fictional name, and the defendant is regarded as a party from the commencement of the suit. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 56 Cal.2d 596, 15 Cal.Rptr. 817, 364 P.2d 681 (1961).

California's fictitious name statute is designed "to help the plaintiff who truly does not know the name of someone against whom he states a cause of action," Schroeter v. Lowers, 260 Cal.App.2d 695, 700, 67 Cal.Rptr. 270, 273 (1968). Under California law,

it has long been recognized that the purpose of the provisions of the fictitious name statute is to enable such a plaintiff to bring suit before it is barred by the statute of limitations and that this procedure does not subject the defendant to undue hardship.

Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., supra, 56 Cal.2d at 602, 15 Cal.Rptr. at 820, 364 P.2d at 684.

Furthermore, California's policy in favor of litigating cases on their merits requires that the fictitious name statute be liberally construed. Barnes v. Wilson, 40 Cal.App.3d 199, 114 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1974). Thus the statutory right of a plaintiff to use a fictitious name when ignorant of a defendant's true name mitigates the harshness of a statute of limitations that is short in comparison to limitations in other jurisdictions.⁵ The policy behind CCP § 474 comports with the observation that, in our complex industrial society, one year may well be insufficient time for the most diligent plaintiff to discover the identity of parties responsible for the malfunction of an obscure component in a sophisticated end-product such as a jet aircraft. Taken together, CCP §§ 340(3), 474, and 581a can, depending on the date the complaint is filed, provide the functional equivalent of a limitations period of up to four years. For such a limitations period to apply two conditions must be met: (1) The plaintiff must file suit within one year of the accrual of the cause of action, and (2) the plaintiff must be unaware of the identity of certain defendants when the complaint is filed.

Defendants Plessey and Automatic argue that CCP § 474 is the exclusive method whereby the initial one-year statute of limitations in CCP § 340(3) may be extended, that the benefits available under § 474 are foreclosed by local rule 4(j), and, therefore, that plaintiff's claims against Plessey and Automatic should now be barred in this forum. This mechanical reasoning, if embraced by the court, could pose a serious question concerning the validity of this local rule which, if so construed, could unfairly discriminate against a plaintiff in a diversity case by withholding important substantive benefits available under state law. Such a result, if attributed to local rule 4(j), could arguably cause it to run afoul of Article I of the United States Constitution; the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, which authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe practice and procedural rules for the district courts provided that "such rules do not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right" (emphasis added); and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 83 which derives from the Rules Enabling Act and authorizes district courts to make rules governing their practice. See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 464, 468 & n. 9, 471, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965). The court, however, finds it unnecessary to grapple with this knotty question for it is possible in this case to harmonize California's statute of limitations policies and local rule 4(j).

California's substantive policy to allow a plaintiff who begins his lawsuit within a year of its accrual three more years to ascertain the identity of unknown defendants is implemented through the procedural mechanism of "Doe" allegations provided in CCP § 474. A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the forum, see, e. g., Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Hanna v. Plumer, supra, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8, including state statutes of limitations, Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945), but is not bound by state procedural law when the matter before the court falls within the scope of a federal procedural rule. Hanna v. Plumer, supra, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8. The court finds that California's policy, embodied in CCP §§ 340(3), 474, and 581a, to provide a plaintiff extra time to seek out unknown defendants can be conceptually divorced from the merely procedural pleading device of "Doe" allegations. Accordingly, this court can apply California's qualified four-year limitations period without requiring compliance in this forum with an implementing state procedural mechanism eschewed for other reasons, see pp. 299 and 300 infra, by a local federal rule.

The absence of a federal pleading mechanism comparable to CCP § 474 necessitates a determination whether plaintiff has met the substantive criteria of California's limitations scheme that would otherwise have been satisfied through "Doe" allegations. Thus plaintiff must show that she is factually entitled to the benefits of California's qualified four-year limitations period. Mrs. Rumberg has made that showing by commencing her suit in this court within the initial one-year period and by demonstrating, through allegations in her complaint filed in state court, her ignorance of defendants' identities within that period. Therefore, the court holds that the second amended complaint was filed within the applicable qualified four-year limitations period.

By ruling that joinder of defendants Plessey and Automatic is not time barred, despite the non-availability in this court of CCP § 474's procedural mechanism, the court does not deprive these defendants of any substantive protections of California's limitations scheme. The purpose of the statute of limitations, "in the oft-quoted words of Justice Holmes is to `prevent surprise through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.'" Elkins v. Derby, 12 Cal.3d 410, 418, 115 Cal.Rptr. 641, 646, 525 P.2d 81, 86 (1974). The California scheme, as embodied in CCP §§ 340(3), 474, and 581a, requires a plaintiff to initiate an action within one year of its accrual in order to take advantage of the extra time allotted to ferret out unknown defendants. The prompt commencement of the action provides the plaintiff with judicially enforceable discovery tools and thus enhances the likelihood of early detection and notification of unknown defendants. Although CCP § 474 gives a plaintiff extra time to uncover the identity of an unknown defendant, CCP § 581a sets the outside time limit at...