Motion to dismiss for naming wrong party7/13/2023 ![]() ![]() Subsequent cases applied this analysis in the John Doe context and held that an amended complaint identifying a John Doe defendant is untimely if it is filed after the statute of limitations has expired, because suing a John Doe is not a mistake. A plaintiff’s “ignorance or misunderstanding about who is liable for his injury” does not satisfy the Rule’s mistake requirement, and therefore any amendment does not relate back to the original complaint. In analyzing whether the plaintiff’s later amendment to identify his original employer was timely, the Seventh Circuit held that Rule 15(c)’s “mistake” clause did not apply when a plaintiff “simply lacks knowledge of the proper defendant.” Hall, 469 F.3d at 596. In Hall, an injured railroad worker sued his current employer, which was a company that had taken possession of the assets of the worker’s original employer after the date on which the worker was injured while working for the original employer. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 469 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged the somewhat incongruent holdings of Hall v. The officers filed an interlocutory appeal and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. ![]() Therefore, the amended complaints “related back” to the original complaint and were timely. The district court denied the motion and reasoned that suing a “John Doe” defendant qualifies as a “mistake” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). The original complaint was timely filed within the limitations period, but two subsequent amended complaints that identified these John Doe defendants were filed outside of the limitations period. The officers who were eventually named then filed a motion to dismiss based on the argument that their addition was untimely. As is often the case in such lawsuits, the plaintiff named each of the correctional officer defendants as “John Doe” when filing the original complaint until he could determine the identity of those individuals. § 1983 against three correctional officers for allegedly failing to protect him from an assault and for denying him timely medical care. This may be especially useful in certain civil rights actions or employment actions where multiple officers or employees are often initially named as Doe defendants. ![]() The Seventh Circuit recently issue a decision that may make it easier for defendants to raise the statute of limitations as a defense when John Doe defendants are identified after the limitations period has run-even when the original complaint was timely filed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |