Amended Complaint Did Not Relate Back to Original Complaint
The issue before the court was whether the claims made in the plaintiff’s amended complaint related back to the original complaint as the statute of limitations had passed. The plaintiff had fallen on the icy parking lot at a roller rink, Skateland. The plaintiff filed a complaint against Skateland as the operator of the roller rink within the statute of limitations. The complaint did not state any claims against the owner of the premises.
After the statute of limitations passed, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the owner of the premises, M.M.N Laufer Family Limited Partnership. A motion to dismiss was brought by M.M.N. on the basis of the running of the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
The plaintiff was originally injured on February 25, 2006. The complaint was filed in April 2008. Shortly thereafter, Skateland’s discovery responses of July 2008 incorrectly stated that the owner of the premises was Martin Laufer. The plaintiff did not immediately move to amend the complaint with claims against the incorrectly identified owner. Eventually, the plaintiff learned that the true owner of the premises was M.M.N. The amended complaint was finally filed in April 2010, over one year after the statute of limitations had passed.
The issue for the appellate court was whether M.M.N. knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning its identity, the plaintiff would have brought her action against it. The original complaint only stated a claim against the operator of the business. Because M.M.N. was merely the owner of the premises and did not play a role in owning, operating or managing the business, the appellate court found that the original complaint would not have provided the requisite notice to M.M.N.
The court also stated that the mistake found in the discovery responses had no impact on its decision. The complaint would not have caused M.M.N. to know that, but for the mistake in the discovery responses as to the correct identity of the owner of the premises, the claim would have been brought against it.
The failure of the plaintiff to timely file an amended complaint after receiving information, albeit incorrect, identifying the owner of the premises weighed into the court’s decision. The court did not agree that there was a “mistake” which excused the plaintiff’s delay in filing an amended complaint which included the owner of the premises.
Wiley v. M.M.N. Laufer Family Limited Partnership (2010AP2789) Court of Appeals opinion
