Mills v. J.E.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc.

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 17, 2014
• Docket: 14C-01-073
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

MICHAEL MILLS, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N14C-01-073 ALR J. E. M. ENTERPRISES, Inc., ) Defendant and ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HARVEY HANNA & ) ASSOCIATES, Inc., ) Third-Party Defendant )

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: November 17, 2014

Upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint GRANTED

Plaintiff Michael Mills has filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to add a

direct claim against Third-Party Defendant Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc.,

which opposes Plaintiff’s Motion. After oral argument, the parties submitted

briefing at the Court’s request. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

the Complaint, the Court makes the following findings:

1. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff slipped and fell on July 2, 2012.

2. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 9, 2014 against Defendant J.E.M.

based on Plaintiff’s understanding that Defendant J.E.M. was the party responsible for providing cleaning and janitorial services on the premises

where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell.

3. On February 21, 2014, Defendant J.E.M. filed an Answer and Third-Party

Complaint, asserting that Third-Party Defendant Hanna was the party

responsible for maintaining the interior of the building where Plaintiff

claims to have slipped and fallen.

4. Third-Party Defendant Hanna was served with the Third-Party Complaint on

April 7, 2014, and filed its Answer on June 24, 2014. On that same day,

Third-Party Defendant Hanna also served discovery on Plaintiff.

5. On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel notified counsel for Defendant J.E.M.

and counsel for Third-Party Defendant Hanna that Plaintiff intended to

amend the Complaint to assert claims directly against Third-Party Defendant

Hanna. Counsel for Defendant J.E.M. promptly responded that Defendant

did not object. On July 23, 2014, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant Hanna

responded that Third-Party Defendant could not consent to the amendment

because the applicable statute of limitations had run.

6. On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend the Complaint, which

is now pending before the Court and is the subject of this Order.

2 7. The applicable statute of limitations for the alleged incident expired on July

2, 2014.1 If suit had been filed at the expiration of the statute, service of

process was required within 120 days, no later than October 30, 2014. 2

8. The Court issued a Trial Scheduling Order on August 15, 2014, setting the

trial date of July 27, 2015, as well as other related deadlines, including a

discovery deadline of March 9, 2015.

9. The Court may grant a motion for leave to amend or add a complaint after

the statute of limitations for the proposed claim has expired, if permitted

under the relation-back provision of Rule 15(c). 3

10. Rule 15(c)(3) requires the proposed claim relate back to the same conduct,

transaction, or occurrence described in the original complaint. 4 The effect of

the rule is to enlarge the statute of limitations. 5 Additionally, the party

opposing the amendment must have been put on notice of the existence of

the potential additional plaintiffs and their claims in order to prevent

prejudice to the opposing party’s ability to defend against the proposed

claims on the merits.6

1 10 Del. C. § 8119. 2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4(j). 3 Chaplake Holdings, LTD. v. Chrysler, 766 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2001). 4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(c)(2); Mullen v. Alarmguard, Inc., 625 A.2d 258, 263 (Del. 1993). 5 Mergenthaler, Inc. v. Jefferson, 332 A.2d 396, 398 (Del. 1975). 6 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(c)(3); Mullen, 625 A.2d at 265. 3 11. Despite the general liberal policy of permitting leave to amend under Rule

15(a), a motion to add additional plaintiffs by amendment after the statute of

limitations has run must be denied unless it satisfies the relation-back

requirements of Rule 15(c). 7

12.In Chaplake Holdings the Delaware Supreme Court considered the issue of

adding additional plaintiffs to a cause of action under Rule 15(c). The Court

stated that interpretation of Rule 15(c) requires a balance of encouraging the

disposition of cases on their merits against ensuring defendants receive

enough notice of proposed claims in order to defend against the action

without prejudice.8 In Chaplake, the Court found the defendant was not

prejudiced by permitting additional plaintiffs because the claims of the new

plaintiffs were identical to the claims provided in the original complaint.

Furthermore, the proposed additional plaintiffs were originally included as

parties to the action.9 Thus, the defendant was on notice as to the identity of

the plaintiffs and their claims and was not prejudiced in defending against

the claims on the merits. 10

13.Here, the relation-back requirements have been satisfied. First, the claim by

Plaintiff against Third-Party Defendant Hanna arises out of the same

7 Mullen, 625 A.2d at 263. 8 Chaplake Holdings, LTD., 766 A.2d at 7. 9 Id. at 8. 10 Id. at 7-8. 4 occurrence as the slip and fall, which is the subject of the Complaint and the

Third-Party Complaint. In fact, the Plaintiff’s proposed amendment asserts

claims identical to the claims in Plaintiff’s original pleading, as well as

claims identical to those set forth in the Third-Party Complaint. Next,

Third-Party Defendant Hanna was on notice of the claim within 120 days of

the expiration of the statute of limitations. Last, Third-Party Defendant

Hanna filed a responsive pleading and actively engaged in discovery with

Plaintiff as to his claim.

14. Therefore, the interests of justice require the Court to grant Plaintiff’s

Motion.11 Third-Party Defendant Hanna was on notice of Plaintiff’s claims

before the Court assigned a trial date for this case and Third-Party Defendant

Hanna has actively engaged in discovery to prepare a defense. Indeed, there

is no prejudice to Third-Party Defendant Hanna.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, this 17th day of

November, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Mills’ Motion to Amend Complaint is

hereby GRANTED. The Amended Complaint shall be filed within ten (10)

days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Andrea L. Rocanelli ____________________________________ The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli 11 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a); Spady v. Keen, 2006 WL 2559853, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 25, 2006). 5