Federal District Court Rejected Newly-Named Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Statute of Limitations After Discovery Revealed Case of Mistaken Vehicle Identity.

This decision may very well go down for its reference to “two identical metallic mint green 1964 Buick Skylark convertibles.” The plaintiff originally sued ACAM Transport, but discovery later revealed that the red tractor-trailer that struck the plaintiff’s vehicle was actually operated by a driver for C.R. England. It was confirmed that C.R. England’s driver fled the scene, lending to Walker’s mistaken belief. 

The court held, citing Walker’s diligence in pursuing the claim, that the amended claims against C.R. England clearly related back to the original complaint under Rule 15. The court also noted that there was no way that C.R. England’s driver would not have known he struck the other vehicle, establishing an argument for constructive notice and blunting any claims by C.R. England that it would be prejudiced by being forced to defend the litigation. 

The court did, however, hold open the possibility that further discovery could show that either Walker should have known of C.R. England’s involvement earlier or that C.R. England should not be forced to defend a suit amended after the statute passed. The court would not entertain such a motion at this early juncture. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}