Jennie Jones v. Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C., et al.

No. W2005-00079-SC-S09-CV · Supreme Court of Tennessee · May 19, 2006 · No. W2005-00079-SC-S09-CV

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a plaintiff invoking Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 to add a nonparty alleged to share fault must obtain written consent of the adverse parties or leave of court under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01. The Court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff substantially complied with the statute and rule because the amended complaint was filed, process was issued and served, and leave to amend was granted within the statutory ninety-day period. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. When a plaintiff uses Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 to add a nonparty as a defendant, the plaintiff must obtain written consent of the adverse parties or leave of court as required by the second sentence of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01.
  2. A plaintiff substantially complies with section 20-1-119 and Rule 15.01 when the motion for leave to amend is filed and granted, the amended complaint is filed, and process is issued and served within the statutory ninety-day period, even though the amended complaint and process precede the motion for leave by one day.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 requires a plaintiff to obtain written consent of adverse parties or leave of court under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01 before filing an amended complaint adding a nonparty alleged to be at fault.
  2. Whether the plaintiff substantially complied with section 20-1-119 and Rule 15.01 when the amended complaint and process were filed and served before the motion for leave to amend was filed, but the motion was granted within the statutory ninety-day period.
  3. Whether the amended complaint was time-barred and subject to dismissal because the plaintiff completed the amendment-related steps out of sequence.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (25)

  • Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591, 594-95 (Tenn. 2004)(followed)
  • Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 90 (Tenn. 2004)(followed)
  • Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Tenn. 2002)(followed)
  • McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 57-58 (Tenn. 1992)(followed)
  • Curtis v. G.E. Capital Modular Space, 155 S.W.3d 877, 880-81 (Tenn. 2005)(followed)
  • Brown v. Wal-Mart Discount Cities, 12 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tenn. 2000)(followed)
  • Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tenn. 2003)(followed)
  • Young v. Toys R Us, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 1035, 1036 (E.D. Tenn. 1997)(distinguished)
  • Ward v. AMI SUB (SFH), Inc., 149 S.W.3d 35, 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)(distinguished)
  • Nipper v. Axtrom Indus., Inc., No. M2005-00349-COA-R10-CV, 2005 WL 1046797, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2005)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…