Weaver v. Firestone
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Carl Weaver appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint filed against him by Roger D. Firestone. In May 1995, Firestone, Charles T. Amberson, Jr., and Darrell Thomas were assaulted, battered, and burned. Amberson and Thomas died from their injuries; Firestone suffered extensive physical injuries and incurred over $1,000,000 in medical expenses. In August 2012, Charles Richard Tooley, L.C. Collins, Jr., and Mickie Wayne Collins pled guilty to attempted murder as to Firestone. On August 20, 2012, Firestone sued Weaver; Tooley; Collins, Jr.; Collins; and fictitiously named parties A-M. Recognizing that his causes of action were filed outside their respective limitations periods, Firestone noted in his complaint that the defendants then-recently led guilty, and it was not until recently that Firestone discovered the identity of the [individuals] who had attacked him "because of the fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy and the identity of the conspirators." After conducting a hearing on Weaver's motion to dismiss, the trial court denied Weaver's motion, concluding that the statutes of limitations had been tolled. The Supreme Court reversed: because Firestone did not satisfy the "reasonable-diligence" standard for equitable tolling and Firestone's causes of action were filed undisputedly after the expirations of the applicable limitations periods, his claims against Weaver were barred by the limitations periods.
Download PDF
REL: 01/11/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1101403 C a r l Weaver v. Roger D. F i r e s t o n e Appeal from Coosa C i r c u i t (CV-10-900025) STUART, Court Justice. Carl Weaver appeals the t r i a l motion t o dismiss the complaint Firestone. We r e v e r s e court's denial of his f i l e d a g a i n s t h i m b y R o g e r D. a n d remand. Facts 1101403 In May T. Amberson, J r . , and D a r r e l l Thomas were a s s a u l t e d , b a t t e r e d , a n d b u r n e d . Amberson and suffered Thomas extensive medical 1995, F i r e s t o n e , died from their physical injuries expenses. L.C. C o l l i n s , Charles injuries; Firestone a n d i n c u r r e d o v e r $1,000,000 i n I n August 2012, C h a r l e s Richard Tooley, J r . , a n d M i c k i e Wayne C o l l i n s p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r as t o F i r e s t o n e . On August 20, 2012, Firestone sued Weaver; Tooley; C o l l i n s , J r . ; C o l l i n s ; a n d f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s A-M. his complaint, was In F i r e s t o n e a l l e g e d t h a t i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1995 he i n j u r e d when Weaver, Tooley, Collins, J r . , and Collins c o n s p i r e d t o "maim, t o r t u r e , a n d k i l l " h i m ; c o m m i t t e d t h e t o r t of and outrage; c o m m i t t e d an a s s a u l t a n d b a t t e r y on h i s p e r s o n ; a t t e m p t e d t o murder him. Recognizing t h a t h i s c a u s e s o f a c t i o n were f i l e d outside t h e i r respective l i m i t a t i o n s periods, Firestone averred i n h i s complaint: "On A u g u s t 9, 2 0 1 0 , T o o l e y , M. C o l l i n s , a n d C o l l i n s , J r . p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o a t t e m p t e d murder o f [Firestone]. I t was n o t u n t i l t h i s date that [Firestone] discovered the identity of the [ i n d i v i d u a l s ] who h a d a t t a c k e d h i m b e c a u s e o f t h e f r a u d u l e n t concealment o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y and t h e i d e n t i t y of the c o n s p i r a t o r s . [ F i r e s t o n e ] avers that d e s p i t e d i l i g e n t e f f o r t s , he c o u l d n o t d i s c o v e r t h e 2 1101403 i d e n t i t y o f h i s a t t a c k e r s b e f o r e A u g u s t 9, 2012. [ F i r e s t o n e ] has s i n c e A u g u s t 9, 2012, further d i s c o v e r e d t h e i d e n t i t y o f Weaver and h i s r o l e i n t h i s m a t t e r . [ F i r e s t o n e ] a v e r s t h a t none o f t h e a c t s o f [ W e a v e r , T o o l e y , M. C o l l i n s , and C o l l i n s , J r . , ] are barred by the statute of limitations. [ F i r e s t o n e ] avers that this action i s brought a g a i n s t [ t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s ] w i t h i n the time allowed by A l a b a m a l a w f o r b r i n g i n g an a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g discovery o f f a c t s w h i c h have been f r a u d u l e n t l y c o n c e a l e d by d e f e n d a n t s . [ F i r e s t o n e ] f u r t h e r a v e r s t h a t any o t h e r w i s e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s has been e q u i t a b l y t o l l e d u n t i l the reasonable e f f o r t s of [ F i r e s t o n e ] to discover the i d e n t i t y of [ t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s ] and t h a t [ F i r e s t o n e ] has b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e t i m e a l l o w e d by l a w f o l l o w i n g s u c h d i s c o v e r y . [ F i r e s t o n e ] f u r t h e r a v e r s t h a t no s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s case u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w b e c a u s e i t i s an a c t i o n f o r damages f o r m a i m i n g and a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r w i t h t h e relevant facts of the identity of [these i n d i v i d u a l s ] d e l i b e r a t e l y c o n c e a l e d as a p a r t o f a c o n s p i r a c y by [ t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s ] t o maim and m u r d e r [ F i r e s t o n e ] and o t h e r s . " On September 24, Firestone's complaint, 2010, Weaver moved to dismiss p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., and §§ 6-2-34 and 6-2-38, A l a . Code 1975. In h i s motion, Weaver barred argued that Firestone's claims were by the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s and d i d n o t f a l l w i t h i n any tolling provision. A f t e r conducting a hearing the trial court on Weaver's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , d e n i e d Weaver's s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s h a d been 3 motion, tolled. concluding that the 1101403 On O c t o b e r 17, 2011, t h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d Weaver p e r m i s s i o n to appeal the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s motion t o d i s m i s s . See R u l e 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. S t a n d a r d o f Review "The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r Rule 12(b)(6)[, A l a . R. C i v . P.,] i s whether, when the a l l e g a t i o n s of the c o m p l a i n t a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n t h e pleader's favor, i t appears that the pleader could prove any set of circumstances t h a t would e n t i t l e her t o relief. Raley v. Citibanc of A l a b a m a / A n d a l u s i a , 474 So. 2d 640, 641 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; H i l l v. F a l l e t t a , 589 So. 2d 746 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) . I n m a k i n g t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t does n o t c o n s i d e r whether the p l a i n t i f f will ultimately p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y w h e t h e r she may p o s s i b l y prevail. F o n t e n o t v. B r a m l e t t , 470 So. 2d 669, 671 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; R i c e v. U n i t e d I n s . Co. o f A m e r i c a , 465 So. 2d 1100, 1101 ( A l a . 1984). We n o t e t h a t a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s beyond doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can prove no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m t h a t would e n t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f t o r e l i e f . G a r r e t t v. Hadden, 495 So. 2d 616, 617 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; H i l l v. K r a f t , I n c . , 496 So. 2d 768, 769 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . ' "'Nance v. 1993)." Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . DGB, LLC v . H i n d s , 55 So. 3d 218, 223 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . Analysis 4 1101403 Weaver c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l motion t o dismiss he says, Firestone's Firestone's statutes claims of l i m i t a t i o n s court erred i n denying h i s complaint a g a i n s t him because, are barred a n d do n o t f a l l by the applicable within any t o l l i n g provision. This Court limitations of i s mindful "[b]ecause a r e a n e c e s s a r y means o f e n s u r i n g the f a c t - f i n d i n g caution that when process, a party T r a v i s v. Z i t e r , seeks a court exercise the 681 So. 2d 1348, 1352 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . 1351 160 i f , from t h e face o f t h e complaint, t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n s do n o t a p p l y . " great t o l l i n g provisions. " [ a ] d i s m i s s a l b a s e d on t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s only of the r e l i a b i l i t y must t o apply" statutes Hence, i s proper i t i s apparent that T r a v i s , 681 So. 2d a t ( c i t i n g W i l l i a m s v. Capps T r a i l e r S a l e s , 589 So. 2d 159, ( A l a . 1991)). The e v e n t s g i v i n g r i s e occurred i n May 1995. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d May 1995 t h a t file later. to Firestone's he h a d been i n j u r e d . h i s complaint u n t i l August I t i s also undisputed causes o f a c t i o n t h a t F i r e s t o n e knew i n Yet, Firestone 2012, more than d i d not 17 years that a l l the claims are outside t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s . See §§ 6-2-34 a n d 6- 5 1101403 2-38, Ala. determine Code 1975. whether Therefore, tolling of the this Court limitations is periods F i r e s t o n e ' s causes of a c t i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t e under the c l a u s e , " see § 6-2-3, A l a . Code 1975, equitable asked to for "savings or under the d o c t r i n e of tolling. "There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between the two e q u i t a b l e d o c t r i n e s a f f o r d i n g r e l i e f f r o m u n f a i r and unnecessarily harsh results [caused by a p p l i c a t i o n o f a l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d ] . The [ s a v i n g s c l a u s e ] avoids the m e c h a n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s by p o s t p o n i n g t h e a c c r u a l o f a c a u s e o f a c t i o n so l o n g as a p a r t y i s unaware e i t h e r t h a t he has been i n j u r e d o r t h a t t h e i n j u r y was due t o t h e f a u l t o r n e g l e c t o f an i d e n t i f i a b l e p e r s o n . E q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g assumes t h e a c c r u a l o f t h e a c t i o n b u t i n t e r c e p t s and d e l a y s t h e b a r o f t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s because the p l a i n t i f f l a c k e d vital information which was withheld by a defendant." V i l l a l o b o s v. 704 (App. Div. Section clause," F a v a , 342 N.J. S u p e r . 38, 45-46, 775 A.2d 700, 2001). 6-2-3, Ala. Code 1975, Alabama's "savings states: " I n a c t i o n s s e e k i n g r e l i e f on t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d where t h e s t a t u t e has c r e a t e d a b a r , t h e c l a i m must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g a c c r u e d u n t i l t h e discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d , a f t e r w h i c h he must have two years w i t h i n which to prosecute h i s a c t i o n . " 6 1101403 In order t o prevent a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s as an i n s t r u m e n t o f f r a u d , this from b e i n g used C o u r t has h e l d t h a t § 6-2-3 a p p l i e s n o t o n l y t o t h e t o r t o f f r a u d , b u t a l s o t o t o r t s where the existence concealed. of the cause DGB, Section o f a c t i o n has 55 So. 3d a t 6-2-3 does been fraudulently 224-25. not t o l l for F i r e s t o n e ' s causes of a c t i o n . 2-3 establishes that the s t a t u t e s of limitations The p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 6¬ i t i s the d i s c o v e r y of the i n j u r y that t r i g g e r s the t o l l i n g , not the d i s c o v e r y of the i d e n t i t y of the tortfeasor. of S e c t i o n 6-2-3 a p p l i e s when t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n i s unknown; i t does cause not delay o f a c t i o n when t h e p l a i n t i f f cannot i d e n t i f y the t o r t f e a s o r . the a c c r u a l cause of the knows o f t h e i n j u r y but H e r e , F i r e s t o n e knew i n 1995 t h a t he h a d b e e n i n j u r e d and t h a t a c a u s e o f a c t i o n e x i s t e d . C o n s e q u e n t l y , § 6-2-3, w h i c h f o c u s e s on t h e d i s c o v e r y of the cause of of a c t i o n , not tortfeasor, Firestone's Next, statutes does the d i s c o v e r y not the identity limitations periods the for claims. we consider of l i m i t a t i o n s appropriate. toll of the I n Ex whether equitable for Firestone's parte Ward, 7 46 So. tolling of the causes of a c t i o n i s 3d 888, 897 (Ala. 1101403 2007), a c a p i t a l tolling period case, this Court recognized i s a v a i l a b l e t o suspend the running " i n extraordinary circumstances p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c o n t r o l and t h a t that equitable of a l i m i t a t i o n s that a r e beyond [ a a r e u n a v o i d a b l e even w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e o f due d i l i g e n c e . " See a l s o I r w i n v . D e p a r t m e n t o f Veterans 89, 96 Affairs, generally a 498 U.S. party arguing (1990)(recognizing the a v a i l a b i l i t y of that equitable t o l l i n g must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p a r t y h a s been p u r s u i n g h i s o r h e r r i g h t s d i l i g e n t l y a n d t h a t some e x t r a o r d i n a r y stood i n h i s or her way). determining Ward, We further circumstance noted that when w h e t h e r e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g was p r o p e r i n Ex p a r t e consideration must be given as to whether the " ' p r i n c i p l e s o f " e q u i t y w o u l d make t h e r i g i d a p p l i c a t i o n o f a limitation period "'"exercised bringing u n f a i r " ' " and whether reasonable [the] c l a i m s . " ' " diligence in the p l a i n t i f f had investigating and 46 So. 3d a t 897 (quoting H o r n , 240 F.3d 239, 245 (3d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , q u o t i n g v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., Fahy v . i n turn 145 F.3d 616, 618 Miller (3d C i r . 1998)). L a s t l y , we o b s e r v e d t h a t " ' t h e t h r e s h o l d n e c e s s a r y t o trigger equitable tolling i s very 8 high, lest the exceptions 1101403 swallow the r u l e . ' 1010 U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M o r c e l l o , ( 7 t h C i r . 2000) Weaver c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l motion t o dismiss its face, Firestone's the complaint exercise reasonable make 212 F.3d 1005, the Firestone identities d i l i g e n c e i n pursing h i s claims so as t o equitable tolling t h a t because t h e o n l y i n pursuing required on d i d not of that h i s causes Firestone t o Alabama's to file fictitious-party proper. information o f a c t i o n was t h e of the t o r t f e a s o r s , the exercise diligence pursuant b e c a u s e , he s a y s , Firestone he m a i n t a i n s lacked complaint indicates application Specifically, court erred i n denying h i s a of reasonable timely complaint practice, see Rule 9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t o commence t h e a c t i o n a n d t o t o l l t h e limitations periods. fictitious-party Weaver complaint reasons that a w o u l d have p r e s e r v e d timely filed Firestone's c a u s e s o f a c t i o n u n t i l he c o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e t o r t f e a s o r s . R u l e 9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s p r a c t i c e i n Alabama. for fictitious-party I t states: "'Fictitious Parties. When a p a r t y i s i g n o r a n t o f t h e name o f an o p p o s i n g p a r t y a n d s o a l l e g e s i n t h e party's pleading, the opposing party may be d e s i g n a t e d by any name, a n d when t h a t p a r t y ' s t r u e name i s d i s c o v e r e d , t h e p r o c e s s a n d a l l p l e a d i n g s 9 1101403 and p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e a c t i o n s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e t r u e name." Firestone the filing that amended for that against only law by provides of a complaint, Alabama be named p a r t i e s i n a c o m p l a i n t b u t m a i n t a i n s fictitiously recognizes may fictitiously named d e f e n d a n t s , w o u l d n o t commence t h e a c t i o n a n d s t o p t h e r u n n i n g of the s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n s . Lewis, 88 So. 3d 899 contention. concluded intent In ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , Kendrick, that the f i l i n g t o serve F i r e s t o n e c i t e s K e n d r i c k v. the Court i n support h i s of Appeals Appeals o f a c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t a bona the defendant before the l i m i t a t i o n s expired d i d not t o l l the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . Civil Civil period The C o u r t o f opined: "Our supreme c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h f i l i n g a complaint i s surely a s i g n i f i c a n t factor f o r a c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a p a r t y has commenced an a c t i o n and whether a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s has t h u s b e e n t o l l e d , i t i s n o t t h e o n l y f a c t o r t h a t a c o u r t may c o n s i d e r . F r e e r v. P o t t e r , 413 So. 2d 1079, 1081 ( A l a . 1982) . F o r p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s , a p a r t y ' s i n t e n t i s a f a c t o r t o c o n s i d e r as w e l l . Our supreme c o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d : "'"We hold that i n the p r e s e n t c a s e t h e a c t i o n was n o t 'commenced' when i t was filed w i t h the c i r c u i t c l e r k because i t was n o t f i l e d w i t h t h e b o n a f i d e intention of having i t immediately served. To hold 10 fide 1101403 otherwise would permit a p a r t y t o extend u n i l a t e r a l l y the period of l i m i t a t i o n s b y an o r a l r e q u e s t t h a t a c t u a l s e r v i c e be w i t h h e l d , thereby giving that party an a d d i t i o n a l p e r i o d o f time w i t h i n which he could conduct an investigation to determine w h e t h e r i n f a c t , he h a d a c l a i m . To p e r m i t t h i s w o u l d v i o l a t e t h e fundamental concept o f repose found w i t h i n every s t a t u t e of limitations." ""[Ward v . Saben A p p l i a n c e Co.,] 391 So. 2d [1030] a t 1035 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ] . A l a r g e number o f c a s e s s u p p o r t t h a t r u l e . J o r d a n v. B o s w o r t h , 123 Ga. 879, 51 S.E. 755 ( 1 9 0 5 ) ( f i l i n g w i t h note t o "hold i t " d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n u n t i l s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n s were w i t h d r a w n ) ; Peterson Philadelphia Suburban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Co., 435 P a . 232, 255 A . 2 d 577 (1969)("hold" order given t o s h e r i f f r e l e a s e s p a r t y f r o m s u i t s i n c e t h e r e was no proper f i l i n g ) ; G r e e n v . F e r g u s o n , 184 S.W.2d 790 (Mo. App. 1 9 4 5 ) ( f i l i n g o f s u i t with instructions to clerk to hold service until further notice was not the "commencement of suit"); Franz v. R a d e a c k a r , 264 S.W. 97 (Mo. App. 1924) ( i f c l e r k i s i n s t r u c t e d upon f i l i n g t o w i t h h o l d service u n t i l further notice, action w i l l n o t be t r e a t e d a s b r o u g h t u n t i l t h e c l e r k proceeds w i t h s e r v i c e ) ; McMullen O i l and R o y a l t y Co. v . L y s s y , 353 S.W.2d 311 ( T e x . C i v . App. 1962) ( f i l i n g o f p e t i t i o n does n o t t o l l statute of l i m i t a t i o n s since there must be a bona f i d e i n t e n t t o i s s u e process).' "Freer, 413 So. 2d a t 1081." 11 1101403 88 So. 3d a t 903-04. Firestone reasons that the f i l i n g of a fictitious-party c o m p l a i n t t h a t does n o t name a t l e a s t one d e f e n d a n t commence an a c t i o n and s t o p p e r i o d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , the running the p l a i n t i f f fide i n t e n t to immediately does n o t of the l i m i t a t i o n s does n o t have a bona serve the complaint. We d i s a g r e e . In K e n d r i c k a n d t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n , t h e p l a i n t i f f a n d / o r his counsel clearly a c t i o n by e n g a g i n g the complaint evidenced i n an o v e r t a c t i o n a t the time a c t i o n by a p l a i n t i f f a defendant to prevent indicates that n o t t o commence t h e t o prevent i t was f i l e d . that commence h i s o r h e r a c t i o n . urges, an i n t e n t a plaintiff's service of Clearly, an o v e r t s e r v i c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t on the p l a i n t i f f We c a n n o t filing i s not ready to c o n c l u d e , as F i r e s t o n e o f an a c t i o n naming only " f i c t i t i o u s p a r t i e s " as d e f e n d a n t s , w i t h o u t more, i n d i c a t e s a plaintiff's intention n o t t o commence h i s or her action. Although an o v e r t a c t i o n by a p l a i n t i f f to hinder service of process on indicates plaintiff an does identified n o t have serve the complaint, defendant a bona the f i l i n g fide intent to of a complaint, that the immediately naming only f i c t i t i o u s p a r t i e s , within the a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s period 12 1101403 indicates cause that of action Our c o n c l u s i o n the p l a i n t i f f i s ready t o pursue h i s or her as soon as t h e t o r t f e a s o r s a r e i d e n t i f i e d . i s s u p p o r t e d by the exemption o f fictitious- p a r t y p r a c t i c e , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., the provisions time l i m i t 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d i n g t h e f o r t h e s e r v i c e o f a summons a n d Firestone complaint; in i n Rule did not file a complaint. timely fictitious-party t h e r e f o r e , he d i d n o t e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e pursuing h i s causes of action. The facts before establish that Firestone knew o f h i s c a u s e s o f a c t i o n the expired, l i m i t a t i o n s periods i d e n t i t i e s of the t o r t f e a s o r s . b u t he t h e l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 9(h) p r e c l u d e s periods a fictitious-party f o r h i s causes exercise reasonable before d i d n o t know t h e Indeed, n o t h i n g i n the f i l i n g a g a i n s t o n l y f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s . file us R u l e 9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i s b r o a d enough t o a d d r e s s s u c h a s i t u a t i o n . to from of a complaint Firestone's failure complaint w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s of action diligence indicates that i n pursuing he d i d n o t h i s causes of action. Because diligence" Firestone standard d i d not f o r equitable 13 satisfy tolling the and "reasonableFirestone's 1101403 c a u s e s o f a c t i o n were f i l e d u n d i s p u t e d l y a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n s of the a p p l i c a b l e limitations periods, Firestone's a g a i n s t Weaver a r e b a r r e d by t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s due t o be claims and a r e dismissed. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is reversed, and this consistent with this t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l case i s remanded court f o r proceedings opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Woodall, B o l i n , Parker, Shaw, a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . Malone, C . J . , and Murdock and Wise, J J . , d i s s e n t from Murdock, J . , t o f o l l o w ) . 14 (writing
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
