 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sulzen v. Williams3/11/1999
leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when Justice so requires." Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a). Moreover, "rule 15 should be interpreted liberally so as to allow parties to have their claims fully adjudicated." Timm v. Dewsnup, 851 P.2d 1178, 1183 (Utah 1993). "When the statute of limitations has expired before an amendment to a pleading is made, the amendment must relate back to the date of the original complaint if the amendment is to be effective." Wilcox v. Geneva Rock Corp., 911 P.2d 367, 369 (Utah 1996).
The relation back doctrine is governed by Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), which provides that " henever 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, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading." Utah R. Civ. P. 15(c).
"W]hile "generally Rule 15(c) . . . will not apply to an amendment which substitutes or adds new parties for those brought before the court by the original pleadings," [the Utah Supreme Court has] made an exception to the general rule. "The exception operates where there is a relation back, as to both plaintiff and defendant, when new and old parties have an identity of interest; so it can be assumed or proved the relation back is not prejudicial." Wilcox, 911 P.2d at 369 (quoting Doxey-Layton Co. v. Clark, 548 P.2d 902, 906 (Utah 1976) (alterations in original)).
Parties have an identity of interest when "the real parties in interest were sufficiently alerted to the proceedings, or were involved in them unofficially, from an early stage." Doxey-Layton Co., 548 P.2d at 906. " he rationale underpinning [the identity of interest] exception is one which obstructs a mechanical use of a statute of limitations; to prevent adjudication of a claim." Id.
In this case, the parents incorrectly named as defendants in the original complaint's caption--i.e., named in the wrong place in the caption's phraseology --had an identity of interest with their children, and thus relating the Sulzens' amendment back would not have been prejudicial. Both Jepson's and Carstensen's parents were served with the complaint, the body of which clearly identified Jepson and Carstensen as the negligent parties, and service on the two minors, both over 14 at the time of service, could properly be accomplished by service on their parents, provided that service occurred at the boys' homes. See Utah R. Civ. P. 4(e). Under these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Jepson and Carstensen were sufficiently alerted to the proceedings, and that they thus had sufficient identity of interest with their parents, to make relation back appropriate. See Wilcox, 911 P.2d at 370 ("'If the body of the complaint correctly identifies the party . . . courts generally will allow an amendment under Rule 15 to correct technical defects in the caption.'") (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2d ยง 1321, at 728-30 (1990)). Cf. Russell v. Standard Corp., 898 P.2d 263, 265 (Utah 1995) (noting that identity of interest exists when existing parties and those sought to be added are so closely related "'that notice of the action against one serves to provide notice of the action to the other'") (citation omitted).
Accordingly, under Rule 15's liberal amendment and relation back precepts, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the Sulzens to amend their complaint in their first action to substitute Jepson and Carstensen for their respective parents in the caption.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The Sulzens brought both their
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|