Schwartz v. Metro Limo, Inc.
1996 WL 681215, 683 So. 2d 201, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12445 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An amended complaint adding a new defendant after the statute of limitations has expired will relate back to the original filing date if the originally named defendant is related to the proper defendant and, through its participation in the proceedings, has led the plaintiff to believe the correct party was sued.
Facts:
- On January 8, 1988, Eric Schwartz's car was rear-ended by a taxicab displaying the logo 'Metro Taxi' on its door.
- Metro Limo, Inc. permitted taxicabs to use the 'Metro Taxi' logo and a shared phone number in exchange for a weekly fee.
- Metro Taxi Cab Company, Inc. was a corporation that had never conducted any business.
- Sigmund Zilber served as the principal operating officer for both Metro Limo, Inc. and Metro Taxi Cab Company, Inc.
- Both corporations operated from the same premises, used the same registered agent, and were represented by the same attorney.
- Prior to the lawsuit, the attorney representing Metro Taxi Cab engaged in nearly three years of pre-suit correspondence and claim evaluation with the plaintiffs' attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric and Tina Schwartz sued Metro Taxi Cab Company, Inc. in a state trial court for negligence.
- Metro Taxi Cab filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process, which the trial court denied.
- Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Metro Taxi Cab, finding it was not the proper defendant.
- The trial court then granted the Schwartzes' motion to amend their complaint to add Metro Limo, Inc. as a defendant.
- Metro Limo, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing it was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted Metro Limo's motion to dismiss.
- The Schwartzes, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an amended complaint adding a new, related defendant after the statute of limitations has expired 'relate back' to the original filing date when the originally named defendant, through its overt acts in the litigation, lulled the plaintiff into a false sense of security that the correct party had been sued?
Opinions:
Majority - Goderich, J.
Yes, an amended complaint relates back under these circumstances. The court found that relation back is proper because the originally named defendant, Metro Taxi Cab, was closely related to the proper defendant, Metro Limo, and its litigation conduct misled the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that Metro Taxi Cab's actions were not those of an innocent, wrongly-sued party. Instead of immediately clarifying the mistake, it engaged in 'overt acts' that lulled the plaintiffs into a 'false sense of security.' These acts included years of pre-suit negotiations, filing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds that delayed the case for seven months until after the statute of limitations had run, and filing an answer asserting affirmative defenses like contributory negligence. The significant overlap between the two corporations (same officer, address, and lawyer) further supported the conclusion that the defendants had created a 'minefield for the unwary accident victim' that justified allowing the amendment to relate back.
Dissenting - Schwartz, C.J.
The dissenting judge agreed with the majority's conclusion on the 'relation back' issue, stating that the action against Metro Limo was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, the dissent would affirm the dismissal on different grounds: lack of substantive liability. The dissent argued that Metro Limo's only involvement was permitting cabs to use its logo for a fee. This act alone, according to the dissent, is insufficient to impose liability for the driver's negligence under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine or any other legal theory. Therefore, even if the suit is timely, it should be dismissed because Metro Limo cannot be held legally responsible for the accident.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'relation back' doctrine in the context of mistaken corporate identity. It establishes that a defendant's litigation conduct can be evidence of misleading behavior that justifies allowing a plaintiff to correct their pleading after the statute of limitations has run. The decision serves as a caution to corporations with complex or interrelated structures that they cannot use such confusion to their advantage in litigation. Courts may pierce through corporate formalities if a related but wrongly-sued entity's actions in court actively mislead a plaintiff and cause them to miss a filing deadline against the proper party.
