Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
November 10, 2005 Session JENNIE JONES v. PROFESSIONAL MOTORCYCLE ESCORT SERVICE, L.L.C., ET AL.
Interlocutory Appeal from the Court of Appeals Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-004274-03 Karen R. Williams, Judge

No. W2005-00079-SC-S09-CV - Filed on May 19, 2006

We accepted Defendant's interlocutory appeal in this personal injury action to determine whether, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, a plaintiff is required to obtain the permission of the trial court to file an amended complaint naming an additional defendant after an original defendant alleges possible fault by that nonparty. We conclude that permission to file is necessary under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01. We also conclude that, under the facts of this case, Plaintiff has substantially complied with the applicable rules. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tenn. R. App. P. 9 Interlocutory Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Remanded to the Trial Court CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., E. RILEY ANDERSON , ADOLPHO A. BIRCH , JR., and JANICE M. HOLDER , JJ., joined. Gary R. Wilkinson, Memphis, Tennessee, for Defendant/Appellant Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C. Glenn K. Vines, Memphis, Tennessee, for Plaintiff/Appellee Jennie Jones. OPINION FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 10, 2002, while riding as a passenger in a funeral procession, Plaintiff, Jennie Jones, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Memphis, Tennessee. On July 31, 2003, she filed a complaint alleging negligence against Verna Brown, Michael Graves, and Robert Jones.

On December 1, 2003, Defendant Robert Jones filed an answer alleging possible additional fault of two non-parties: Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C., and M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home, Inc. On February 11, 2004, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming these two additional parties pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 (1994 & Supp. 2005). The amended complaint alleged that the negligence of Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C., ("Defendant")1 caused or contributed to the accident and Plaintiff's injuries resulting therefrom. On the same day, Plaintiff had a summons issued by the Shelby County Circuit Clerk. Service of process on both new parties was accomplished on February 11, 2004. On February 12, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave of court to amend her original complaint pursuant to section 20-1-119 to include Defendant as a party defendant to this action. On February 20, 2004, the trial court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add Defendant as a party. Plaintiff did not thereafter re-file her amended complaint, nor did she have service of process re-issued. On March 1, 2004, the ninety-day period provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 for Plaintiff to add as defendants entities to whom fault had been attributed in Robert Jones' December 1, 2003, answer expired. On April 28, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's amended complaint, asserting that the amended complaint was time-barred. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, but granted Defendant's subsequent motion for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. On February 24, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied Defendant's application for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted Defendant's application for interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(a)(3), in order to address an issue of law that is a matter of first impression in this State: whether leave of court must be obtained prior to filing an amended complaint naming a new party defendant and causing the issuance and service of process thereon under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119. STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, contending that the complaint is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.2 The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss presents a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness accorded to the conclusions reached below. Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591, 594-95 (Tenn. 2004); Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 90 (Tenn. 2004). Likewise, questions of statutory

Although M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home, Inc., was also named in the amended complaint, Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C., is the only party pursuing this appeal. Although Defendant did not specify under which rule this motion is brought, we assume that Defendant intended to raise the issue under Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, since statute of limitations defenses are considered under this section. See, e.g., Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W .3d 636, 638 (Tenn. 2003).
2

1

-2-

construction present questions of law that we review de novo without a presumption of correctness accorded to the conclusions reached below. Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Tenn. 2002). ANALYSIS I. Need for Authorization to Amend Under Section 20-1-119 Plaintiff's claims of negligence arising out of the automobile accident in this case are subject to the one-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. Tenn. Code Ann.

Download JonesJopn.pdf

Tennessee Law