Patterson v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment dismissing Dawn and Brooks Patterson’s asbestos-related claims against Consolidated Aluminum Corporation and Lonza America, Inc. as barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relation back under Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 9(h) and 15(c) because they did not promptly amend their complaint after learning of the defendants’ identity and potential liability.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because it considered evidence outside the pleadings.
2. A plaintiff may substitute a defendant for a fictitiously named party after the limitations period only if the plaintiff stated a cause of action against the fictitious party in the original complaint, was ignorant of the defendant's identity when the complaint was filed, exercised due diligence to identify the defendant, and promptly amended the complaint after learning the defendant's identity.
3. The Pattersons were not entitled to relation back because they failed to exercise due diligence by promptly amending their complaint after they knew or should have known that CAC and Lonza were the parties described fictitiously.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly treated CAC and Lonza's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because matters outside the pleadings were considered.
2. Whether the Pattersons could use the relation-back provisions of Rules 9(h) and 15(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., to substitute CAC and Lonza for fictitiously named defendants after the statute of limitations had expired.
3. Whether the Pattersons exercised due diligence and promptly amended their complaint after knowing or having notice of CAC and Lonza's identities and potential liability.

Disposition

affirmed