Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Jones v. Lachman
Citations: 773 P.2d 1; 96 Or. App. 246Docket: A8609-05718; CA A48527
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; April 26, 1989; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff Linda D. Jones appeals a judgment favoring defendant Alan Lachman after the trial court denied her motions to amend her complaint to substitute Tim Lachman as the defendant post-Statute of Limitations. Jones was injured in a car accident on October 31, 1984, and filed her complaint against Alan Lachman on September 22, 1986, despite the car being owned and driven by Tim Lachman. Her first motion to amend, filed after the Statute of Limitations expired on April 2, 1987, was denied, as was a subsequent motion on February 10, 1988. The court dismissed her complaint when she could not prove claims against Alan. Jones contends the court erred in denying her motions. Under ORCP 23 C, a claim can only relate back if (1) it arises from the original complaint's occurrence, (2) the substituted party received notice before the Statute of Limitations expired without prejudice, and (3) the party should have known the action would have been against them but for a misidentification. Jones admitted her first amended complaint did not satisfy these requirements but argued that her second amended complaint did. However, the court maintained discretion under ORCP 23 A to deny the amendment, emphasizing that the trial court must consider whether justice would be served in allowing the amendment, regardless of the sufficiency of allegations made in the tendered complaint. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions to amend. The parties treated the plaintiff's motions to amend as motions for summary judgment, focusing on whether the amended pleading should relate back. Evidence indicated that the Statute of Limitations had expired. The defendant presented a conversation with an insurance adjuster where the plaintiff mistakenly identified the other driver as "Alan" instead of "Tim." The plaintiff claimed her friend provided the incorrect name, leading to confusion over the correct identity. Despite the plaintiff's attempts to explain the error and the assumption that "Tim" was a nickname, the court found insufficient evidence to support the amended complaint relating back to the original filing date. The plaintiff filed the second motion to amend almost fifteen months post-accident, but the record showed she was aware of Tim's name at the time of the accident. The court noted that there were no facts in the second complaint establishing that it would relate back, particularly as there was no evidence Tim received notice of the original action. The trial court had discretion under ORCP 23 A to deny the amendment, which it did, concluding that justice did not require allowing the filing of the amended complaint. The ruling was affirmed, emphasizing the lack of timely notice to Tim and distinguishing this case from previous relevant rulings.