Court: District Court, D. Kansas; February 6, 1991; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Peggy V. Grissom initiated a diversity action against multiple defendants, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Dayco Products, Inc., the remaining defendant, filed a motion to dismiss based on the Kansas two-year statute of limitations, K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4). The court decided to treat this motion as one for summary judgment due to references to evidence beyond the pleadings. After hearing oral arguments, the court reviewed the evidence and memoranda and ultimately denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The court clarified that a moving party must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact to be entitled to summary judgment, as outlined by Fed. R.Civ. P. 56(c). It emphasized that the opposing party must present specific facts to show a genuine issue for trial, rather than relying solely on allegations.
Key facts established include that Grissom was injured at work on September 16, 1986, while employed by Dayco Corporation and subsequently received workers’ compensation benefits. Dayco Corporation sold its Fort Scott plant to Armstrong Rubber Company on October 24, 1986, which then formed Dayco Products, Inc. Grissom was discharged on April 16, 1987. Her attorney notified "Dayco" of the intent to file a lawsuit for retaliatory discharge nearly two years later, on April 11, 1989, and subsequently filed the action against "Dayco" (Day International Corporation) and M.A. Hanna Company within the statute of limitations.
On April 14, 1989, The Corporation Company, Inc. was served as the registered agent for Day International Corporation and Dayco Products, Inc. Subsequently, on July 17, 1989, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint to include Dayco Products, Inc. as a defendant, which the court granted on August 7, 1989. Dayco Products, Inc. was served on August 10, 1989, while the other defendants, Day International Corporation and M.A. Hanna Company, were dismissed from the case, leaving Dayco Products, Inc. as the sole defendant.
The defendant argues that the amended complaint is barred by the two-year statute of limitations, K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4), claiming the cause of action accrued on April 16, 1987, and asserting that notice of the lawsuit was not received until April 18, 1989, with service occurring later. The defendant contends that the amended complaint does not relate back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) due to insufficient notice within the limitations period.
The plaintiff counters that the amended complaint relates back to the original filing on April 13, 1989, claiming it is timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), which allows amendments if the claim arises from the same conduct and the new party had notice and knew or should have known they would be named but for an identity mistake. The court noted that all four factors for relation back must be satisfied, emphasizing that notice is crucial.
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet all four relation back criteria, particularly the requirement for notice of the lawsuit within the limitations period. The court deemed the plaintiff's efforts, including a certified letter and a telephone discussion with "Dayco," inadequate for providing notice. Additionally, the original defendants were not closely related to Dayco, which further weakened the argument for notice.
Service of the original complaint on an agent for service of process, where the defendant was identified as "Dayco," did not adequately notify Dayco Products, Inc. of the action's initiation. Although the agent could receive process for Dayco Products, Inc., notice was not provided until after the statute of limitations had lapsed, preventing the plaintiff's amended complaint from relating back to the original under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). However, equitable principles may prevent the dismissal of the case, as Kansas law allows for equitable estoppel against a statute of limitations defense. A claim of equitable estoppel requires showing that the defendant's conduct misled the plaintiff, leading them to reasonably rely on that conduct and suffer prejudice if the defendant denies the existence of certain facts.
The record indicates that Dayco Products, Inc. may have misrepresented its identity to the plaintiff, who received correspondence from them under varying names and letterheads. Although there is evidence suggesting Dayco Products, Inc. was the plaintiff's employer, it remains legally unclear if the defendant can be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations. The court emphasized that whether the defendant misled the plaintiff is a factual question for the trier of fact to resolve. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the case will proceed to trial to determine the applicability of equitable estoppel. The former defendants, Day International Corporation and M.A. Hanna Company, have been dismissed from the case. The court ordered copies of the memorandum and order mailed to the parties' counsel.
