In Murphy v. Hinton, No. COA14-1230 (July 7, 2015), the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that a complaint dismissed voluntarily cannot benefit from the "one-year refiling" period pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure if that dismissed complaint does not meet the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(1).
Facts
On June 21, 2012, plaintiff filed a wrongful death complaint
against defendant as a result of a carbon monoxide asphyxiation
caused by propane heater. Despite allegations in the complaint of
"aforementioned negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or
willfulness", the Court of Appeals stated that "no
portion of the complaint describes any act or omission by
[defendant] that could constitute negligence or similar tort
liability".
On October 4, 2012, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
complaint.
On August 30, 2013, plaintiff refiled that same complaint.
On December 31, 2013, plaintiff amended the refiled complaint with
"far more detail[]", in the words of the Court of
Appeals.
Motion to Dismiss
On May 27, 2013, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint
"based on the statute of limitations".
At core, defendant argued that the October 2012 voluntary dismissal
of the complaint "did not provide a one-year period in which
to refile under Rule 41(a)(1)", which is the only means by
which the plaintiff could argue that the August 2013 complaint fell
inside the applicable limitations period.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
The Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal.
Quoting Estrada v. Burnham, 316 N.C. 318 (1986) (violation
of Rule 11(a)) and citing also to Robinson v. Entwistle,
132 N.C. App. 519 (1999)(violation of Rule 9(j)), the
Court reminds the litigants at the outset that "in order for a
timely filed complaint to toll the statute of limitations and
provide the basis for a one-year 'extension' by way of a
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the complaint
must conform in all respects to the rules of
pleading."
The Court looks into the substance of the voluntarily dismissed
complaint filed in June 2012 to find that the June 2012 complaint
"does not include any 'aforementioned'
negligence", does not allege that defendant "owed any
duty" to the deceased, does not claim that the propane tank
was "defective, unreasonably dangerous, improperly installed,
or negligently maintained", and that "the [June 2012]
complaint does not even allege that [the] propane tank was the
source of the carbon monoxide that allegedly killed" the
deceased. The Court concludes that these deficiencies render the
June 2012 complaint in violation of Rule 8.
The Court adds that "[t]here is no more fundamental 'rule
of pleading' than the foundational requirement of Rule
8(a)(1)", which requires that the plaintiff cannot benefit
from the "one-year" tolling protections of Rule
41(a)(1).
The Takeaway
In the face of running limitations periods, clear
"placeholder" complaints will not toll that period for
the one-year period as spelled in Rule 41(a)(1) of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This has been the law for some
time.
But litigants should be understand that North Carolina courts will
look closely at refiled complaints -- even where the
"placeholder" nature is not apparent or even correct --
to determine whether the Rules of Civil Procedure were followed in
that original, since dismissed filing such that the
"one-year" tolling protections will apply.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.