NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
·FlLE IN CLERKS OFFICE
~ COURT, STATE OF WASHING"'IN
DA'i'E_DEC 1 11!JJ4 ~~ lu161tt) C} . ~ CHIIiF JUSTICE
······.r\ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
JESSE POWERS, ) ) Respondent, ) No. 90133-3 ) v. ) ) W.B. MOBILE SERVICES, INC., A ) Washington Corporation, ) EnBanc ) Petitioner, ) and ) ) PREMIER COMMUNITIES, INC., a ) Washington Corporation; PACIFIC MOBILE ) STRUCTURES, INC., a Washington ) Corporation d/b/a PACIFIC MOBILE; ) and JOHN DOE TWO, ) Filed DEC 1 1 2014 _ _ _ _ __ _ . . c _ _
) Defendants. ) ___ )
GONZALEZ, J.--Lawsuits must be initiated within the relevant statute of
limitations. Generally, plaintiffs need to timely serve only one defendant to toll the
statute of limitations on their claims. Today, we are asked whether service of process
on one defendant tolls the statute of limitations as to an unserved and unnamed
defendant that the plaintiff identified with a placeholder such as "John Doe." We find
that service of process on one defendant tolls the statute of limitations as to an
Powers v. WB. Mobile Services, Inc.; No. 90133-3
unserved and unnamed defendant if the plaintiff identifies the unnamed defendant
with reasonable particularity. Here, plaintiff Jesse Powers identified defendant W.B.
Mobile Services Inc. with such reasonable particularity. We affirm the Court of
Appeals and remand to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this
opmwn.
FACTS
On June 2, 2006, a handicap access ramp platform at a residential construction
site in Spanaway, Washington, collapsed when Powers used it Powers fell and was
injured when the platform collapsed.
Powers fell while working for Awning Solutions, a company hired by Premier
Communities Inc. to install an awning on a modular building. Premier also contracted
with Pacific Mobile Structures Inc. to supply the ramp that collapsed. Unknown to
Powers, Awning Solutions, or Premier, Pacific had subcontracted with W.B. Mobile
to install the ramp that collapsed. After falling, Powers "tried to find out exactly who
put the ramp the together," including making inquiries to Awning Solutions, but
Awning Solutions thought that Pacific installed the ramp. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 256.
Premier's sign was displayed at the site.
On May 28, 2009, Powers filed a personal injury suit against Premier, Pacific,
and John Doe One and John Doe Two, identifying "John Doe One" as the "builder of
the handicap access ramp where the incident occurred." Id. at 186. The statute of
limitations for Powers's suit expired on June 2, 2009. RCW 4.16.080. Powers timely
Powers v. WE. Mobile Services, Inc.: No. 90133-3
served Pacific on June 5, 2009, and Premier on June 12, 2009. 1 Powers, of course, did
not serve the John Does or W.B. Mobile at thattime.
In its answer to Powers's complaint, in July 2009, Pacific indicated that
Powers's injuries may have been caused "by the negligence or fault of persons or
entities presently unknown and not a party herein" and that Powers "may have failed
to join indispensable parties." CP at 331. At that time, Pacific did not disclose that
W.B. Mobile installed the ramp, but a few days later, on July 28, 2009, Pacific sent
W.B. Mobile a letter detailing Powers's complaint, including copies of Powers's
complaint and Pacific's invoices reflecting that W.B. Mobile installed the ramp. The
owner and sole employee ofW.B. Mobile confirmed that he received the letter
'"probably a few days"' after July 28, 2009. Id. at 170 (emphasis omitted).
In December 2009, Pacific submitted to the trial court a list of "possible
primary witnesses," which included "Employees of WB Mobile," with the description
that "[o]ne or more employees ofWB Mobile may be called to testify about the terms
of the contract between WB Mobile and Pacific Mobile as well as about who installed
the ramp where the plaintiff alleges failed." Id. at 335 (capitalization omitted), 337.
Later, during a January 2010 deposition, Powers was informed that Pacific was
attempting to ascertain who installed the ramp and considering whether W.B. Mobile
installed the ramp.
1Although the statute of limitations ran on June 2, 2009, parties have 90 days to serve their complaint after filing suit. RCW 4.16.170.
Powers v. WB. Mobile Services, Inc.; No. 90133-3
Finally, over a year after filing his complaint, Powers obtained a discovery
response from Pacific in October 2010 identifying W.B. Mobile as the installer of the
ramp. As noted by W.B. Mobile, Powers did not make his discovery requests or
Pacific's responses part of the record in the trial court, thus we do not know how
diligent Powers was in pursuing discovery or whether he could have discovered W.B.
Mobile earlier from Pacific's responses. Suppl. Br. ofPet'r at 13 n.4. Four months
after Pacific's discovery response, in February 2011, Powers moved to amend his
pleading to replace John Doe One with "W.B. Mobile." CP at 378.
The trial court granted W.B. Mobile's motion to dismiss for failure to bring
claims within the statute of limitations. 2
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Powers's serving Pacific and Premier
within ninety days of filing his complaint tolled the statute of limitations on Powers's
claim against W.B. Mobile, and remanded for a trial on the merits. Powers v. W.B.
Mobile Servs., Inc., 177 Wn. App. 208, 215, 311 P.3d 58 (2013). The Court of
Appeals did not reach whether Powers's amended complaint related back to the date
of his initial complaint under CR 15(c). !d. We granted W.B. Mobile's petition for
review and now affirm. Powers v. W.B. Mobile Servs., Inc., 180 Wn.2d 1022, 328
P.Jd 902 (2014).
2Powers, Premier, and Pacific stipulated that they had reached a settlement, and the trial court dismissed Powers's claims against both Premier and Pacific. Neither Premier nor Pacific appealed to the Court of Appeals or this court. Powers v. WB. Mobile Servs., Inc., 177 Wn. App. 208,212 n.2, 311 P.3d 58 (2013).
Powers v. WB. Mobile Services, Inc.', No. '90133-3
ANALYSIS
A. Standard of review
"The standard of review of an order of smmnary judgment is de novo, and the
appellate court performs the same inquiry as the trial court." Jones v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 146 Wn.2d 291, 300, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002) (citing Lybbert v. Grant County, 141
Wn.2d 29 34, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000)). The court considers facts and inferences in a light 3
most favorable to the nomnoving parties, here Powers. Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155
Wn.2d 585, 590, 121 P.3d 82 (2005) (citing Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437,
656 P.2d 1030 (1982)).
B. Reasonable particularity
Under RCW 4.16.170, service of process on one defendant tolls the statute of
limitations as to unserved defendants. Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 1J 7 Wn.2d
325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 (1991). In Sidis, this court observed "that in some cases, if
identified with reasonable particularity, 'John Doe' defendants may be appropriately
'named' for purposes of RCW 4.16.170." !d. at 331. This case gives us an
opportunity to explore our observation in Sidis, and we find it sound and authoritative
in the case at bar.
While we have not had occasion to discuss our observation in Sidis previously,
our Courts of Appeals have, and we build on the holdings of the Courts of Appeals.
See, e.g. Bresina v. Ace Paving Co., 89 Wn. App. 277,282,948 P.2d 870 (1997). In 3
Powers ' v. . WB. Mobile Services, Inc.', No. ·90133-3
order for a plaintiff to show that an um1amed defendant is identified with reasonable
particularity, the plaintiff must establish ( 1) (a) from the commencement of the
statute of limitations, the plaintiff made a diligent effort to identify the actual
defendant given the information reasonably available to the plaintiff and (b) the
plaintiff provided information about the unnamed defendant in the complaint to the
greatest extent possible, including describing the unnamed defendant's acts and
appearance and (2) the defendant had or should have received such notice of the
action that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits at the time
when the placeholder for the defendant, such as "John Doe" or "ABC Corporation," is
replaced with the defendant's actual name. The first prong of the reasonable
particularity standard is satisfied only when the plaintiff shows that it made a
reasonable effort to identify an unnamed defendant and that actua]ly naming the
defendant was unreasonably difficult given the information available.
If a plaintiff is able to show that the plaintiff identified an unnamed defendant
with reasonable particularity and tolled the statute of limitations by timely serving at
least one named defendant, the statute of limitations will be tolled as to claims against
such unnamed defendant. In that case, the plaintiff may amend its pleading under CR
- 10(a)(2) to substitute the actual name of the defendant in place of the placeholder for
such defendant, such as "John Doe" or "ABC Corporation," even after the expiration
. . Powers v. W.B. Mobile Services, Inc.; No. ·90133-3
of the statute of limitations, without needing to show that such amendment relates
back to the date of the plaintiffs .original pleading under CR 15(c). 3
We find that Powers identified W.B. ]\1obil~ with reasonable particularity and,
therefore, tolled the statute of limitations by serving Pacific on June 5, 2009, and
properly substituted W.B; Mobile's name for "John Doe One ... builder of the
handicap access ramp where the incident occurred" in February 2011. 4
Viewing facts and inferences in a light most favorable to Powers, as we must,
we find that Powers satisfied the first prong of the reasonable particularity standard.
Powers made a diligent effort to identify and name W.B. Mobile from the
commencement of the statute of limitations given the information reasonably
available because from when Powers fell, Powers "tried to find out exactly who put
3 We recognize that our holding today is contrary to Kiehn v. Nelsen's Tire Co., 45 Wn. App. 291, 294-96, 724 P.2d 434 (1986). Kiehn was decided before Sidis and found that a plaintiff must satisfy CR 15(c) to amend a pleading to replace a placeholder for an unnamed defendant with the defendant's actual name after the expiration of the statute of limitations. I d. Following Sidis, as we hold today, if a plaintiff satisfies the reasonable particularity standard and timely served at least one named·defendant, the statute of limitations has been tolled as to the unnamed defendant and the plaintiff may amend its pleading to replace a placeholder for the unnamed defendant with the defendant's actual name without consideration of CR 15(c). Given that CR 15(c)(2) requires that the defendant "knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him" (emphasis added) and in cases such as this one the plaintiff was "ignorant of the name of the defendant" under CR 10( a)(2) (emphasis added), not mistaken, CR 15(c) does not apply to a plaintiff's amending a pleading to replace a placeholder for an mmamed defendant with the defendant's actual name after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Whether the plaintiff has satisfied the reasonable particularity standard is the exclusive inquiry in such cases. 4 Powers also argues that he may amend his pleading to name W.B. Mobile in place of John Doe One under CR 15(c) and asks us to abandon the "inexcusable neglect" prong of the CR 15(c) analysis. W.B. Mobile filed a motion to strike a portion of Powers's brief devoted to that argument. Given our holding today, we deny the motion as moot.
Powers v. WB. Mobile Services, Inc.; No. 90133-3
the ramp the together" and Powers filed a complaint and initiated discovery to
ascertain more information about the installer of the ramp. CP at 256; RCW 4.16.080.
Powers provided information about W.B. Mobile in his complaint to the greatest
extent possible by describing W.B. Mobile as "John Doe One ... builder of the
handicap access ramp where the incident occurred." CP at 186. Powers's actually
naming W.B. Mobile in his complaint was unreasonably difficult given the
information available because Powers's attempts to ascertain the identity ofW.B.
Mobile were stymied by inaccurate information from his employer and the lack of an
available record showing who installed the ramp. Given the record available and
viewing facts and inferences in a light most favorable to Powers, Powers satisfied the
first prong of the reasonable particularity standard, but this is a close call, and such
finding is the outer extreme of what may satisfY the first prong of the reasonable
particularity standard.
W.B. Mobile received sufficient notice to ensure that it is not prejudiced in
maintaining its defense on the merits, satisfying the second prong of the reasonable
particularity standard. The owner and sole employee ofW.B. Mobile received a copy
of Powers's complaint andPacific's invoices reflecting that W.B. Mobile installed the
ramp at issue a few days after July 28, 2009, well within the ninety days required for
service after Powers filed his complaint on May 28, 2009. See RCW 4.16.170. W.B.
Mobile received actual notice of Powers's claim in a timely manner, which satisfies
the second prong of the reasonable particularity standard.
. . Powers v. W.B. Mobile Services, Inc.; No.'90133~3
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Court of Appeals and find that Powers identified W.B. Mobile
with reasonable particularity. We remand to the superior court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
. . Powers v. WB. Mobile Services, Ino.,'No. 90133--3
WE CONCUR:
_s~;z
f/i/n-~'1/ -~~'--F---"'-"--- a ___ JW; /f1(Mf~ ------+-+------~~---