Knuckles v. Fryatt

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Hattie Knuckles as guardian ad litem for Robert H. Knuckles and Hattie Knuckles, Appellants, v. Steven Ray Fryatt, RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., John Doe d/b/a Buckets of Beer, John Doe d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Christopher K. Haynes, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Buckets Cafe, LLC, John Doe, and/or John Doe Corporation, Defendants, Of Whom John Doe d/b/a Buckets of Beer, John Doe d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Christopher K. Haynes, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets of Beer, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Buckets Cafe, LLC, are Respondents. Appeal From Lexington County R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-025 Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2011 AFFIRMED J. Kendall Few, of Greer, for Appellants. William A. Coates and Joseph O. Smith, both of Greenville, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Hattie Knuckles appeals the dismissal of her personal injury claim against John Doe d/b/a Buckets of Beer, John Doe d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Christopher K. Haynes, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets of Beer, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Buckets Cafe, LLC (collectively Buckets), arguing that the trial court erred in granting Buckets' motion for summary judgment on the ground the statute of limitations had not run because the amended complaint related back to the date of the original complaint. We disagree. We affirm[1] because the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations passed. The amended complaint does not relate back to the date of the original complaint under Rule 15(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure because new defendants were added. Relation back to original pleadings applies only when an existing party is changed, not when a new party is added to a complaint. Cline v. J.E. Faulkner Homes, Inc., 359 S.C. 367, 371 n.2, 597 S.E.2d 27, 29 n.2 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding that relation back to original pleadings applies only when an existing party is changed, not when a new party is added to a complaint); See Jackson v. Doe, 342 S.C. 552, 558, 537 S.E.2d 567, 570 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding that Rule 15(c) addresses correcting or substituting a party, not adding a party). Here, the parties added by the amendment were in addition to the John Doe party and therefore, this was not a correction or substitution of a party. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.