![]() 404 (1995) (amendment of “Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc.” to “Winn–Dixie Raleigh, Inc.” not allowed where both were Florida corporations authorized to do business in North Carolina case not decided under Crossman but with harmonious rationale). (Stores), a separate legal entity, even where Stores had notice of original complaint. (Parts) was not allowed to amend the complaint to name Advance Stores Company, Inc. Plaintiff who sued Advance Auto Parts, Inc. to “FSC II LLC d/b/a Fred Smith Company” after statute of limitations had run where the two companies were separate and distinct entities. Plaintiff was not allowed to change the defendant from “Fred Smith Company, Inc. Citing Crossman, similar results were reached in: In Crossman, therefore, when the plaintiff-who had originally sued and served Van Dolan Moore-discovered after the limitations period that the proper defendant was the son, Van Dolen Moore II, it was too late to add him. It is not authority for the relation back of a claim against a new party.” 341 N.C. Moore, our Supreme Court made clear that the North Carolina Rule does not operate like the Federal Rule: “his rule does not apply to the naming of a new party-defendant to the action. Unlike Federal Rule 15(c), however, North Carolina’s Rule 15(c) makes no mention of adding new parties. Rule 15 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure states that courts should freely allow amendments to complaints “when justice so requires.” If the statute of limitations has run on a new claim, Rule 15(c) allows it to “relate back” in time to the original complaint if “the original pleading… notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.” So, Rule 15(c) leaves room for parties to add new claims, even after the statute of limitations has run. ![]() ![]() Stone actually corrected a “misnomer” of the original Defendant or named a new Defendant altogether. Should the trial court grant the dismissal? The answer lies in whether Mr. Stone did not sue it before the statute of limitations expired. moves to dismiss the suit, arguing that Mr. The attorney moved to amend the complaint and summons to change the store’s name from “Brightline Foods, Inc.” to “Brightline Foods NC, Inc.,” and the court allowed it. Stone’s attorney discovered that the complaint and summons misstated Defendant’s name. A week later-just after the statute of limitations expired-Mr. Stone filed a tort action against a nearby grocery store after he was injured in the dairy aisle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |