declining to follow Schiavone interpretation of Rule 15(c) for sake of “uniformity”; holding that "within the period provided by law" means applicable statute of limitations plus time allowed for service of process
How later courts described this case
- declining to follow Schiavone interpretation of Rule 15(c) for sake of “uniformity”; holding that "within the period provided by law" means applicable statute of limitations plus time allowed for service of process
- noting that statutes of limitation are aimed at protecting defendants and courts from stale claims, and at protecting defendants from prolonged economic or psychological uncertainty
- rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal analog of Arizona Rule of Procedure 15(c), in part, because “[i]t conflict[ed] with established Arizona law”
- the purpose of the rule was “to aid those who had erred in identifying a defendant”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CORCORAN, Justice,
specially concurring:
I concur with the result in the majority opinion. I write separately to suggest that this court change the wording of our rule 15(c) to reduce any confusion that may result from our interpreting “commencing the action" in a manner inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the analogous federal rule, and in a manner contrary to the definition of that phrase in rule 3, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. I have recommended in the past that when we interpret a rule contrary to its apparent meaning, we should also amend the wording of the rule to conform to our interpretation. See State v. Zuniga, 163 Ariz. 105, 107 , 786 P.2d 956, 958 (1990) (Corcoran, J., specially concurring).
The problem with the present wording of our rule 15(c) is the requirement that the misnamed defendant be notified of the filing of the suit “within the period provided by law for commencing the action____” Rule 3 provides that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Our holding today, however, provides that the phrase “commencing an action” within the meaning of rule 15(c) does not limit amendment to the time period in which a complaint must be filed, but includes the time period in which a defendant must be served with notice of the complaint. See rule 6(f). This results in internal inconsistency within the Arizona rules themselves, and not merely a difference of opinion with the United States Supreme Court.
I would therefore recommend amending rule 15(c) to incorporate a change recently suggested by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, to remove the phrase “within the period provided by law for commencing the action” and substitute the wording “before the expiration of the period provided by rule 6(f) for service of the summons and complaint.” 2 See Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States at 45 (Sept. 1989). The advisory committee note to the similarly worded proposed federal amendment indicates that the revision was formulated to change the result in Schiavone v. Fortune with regard to a misnamed defendant, and to provide that a defendant “who is effectively notified of an action within the period allowed ... for service of a summons and complaint, may not under the revised rule defeat the action on account of a defect in the pleading with respect to the defendant’s name.” Preliminary Draft, at 46.
I believe that revising Arizona’s rule 15(c) as I have suggested would clarify the confusion that has resulted over the phrase “commencing the action,” and would effectuate the policies behind our abatement provision in rule 6(f).
. I do not necessarily agree with the entire text of the proposed amendment to rule 15(c) set forth in the Preliminary Draft, which still retains ambiguities present in the current rule that should also be clarified by amendment, but which are not at issue in this case.