Barbara Anderson v. Bondex Intl Inc, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: JORDAN, VANASKIE, Authoring Judge and Circuit Judges and *RAKOFF, Senior District Judge. Total Pages: 11. *The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-2306
_____________
BARBARA ANNE ANDERSON,
Appellant
v.
BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. An Ohio Corporation; CBS CORPORATION, A
Delaware Corporation (Successor By Merger With CBS Corporation F/K/A
Westinghouse Electric Corporation)Formerly Known As Viacom Inc.; GEORGIAPACIFIC CORPORATION, A Georgia Corporation (Sued Individually And As
Successor-In-Interest To Bestwall Gypsum Company); IMO INDUSTRIES, A Delaware
Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Delaval Sream Turbine
Co.); INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, A New Jersey Corporation (Sued Individually
And As Successor-In-Interest Terry Steam Turbine Company); OWENS-ILLINOIS INC,
A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Successor
Owens-Illinois Glass Company);
PHILIPS ELECTRONICIS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, A Delaware
Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To And As Alter-Ego To
Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.); PRM, INC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued
Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Bondex International, Inc); T H
AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION, LLC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually
And As Successor-In-Interest To Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.); TYCO
INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., A Massachusetts Corporation (Sued Individually And
As Successor-In-Interest To Yarway Corporation); TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS
INC., A Texas Corportion (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Yarway
Corporation); UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, A New York Corporation;
YARWAY CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As
Successor-In-Interest To Yarnall Warning Co.)*
*

Appellees Specialty Products Holding Corp. f/k/a RPM, Inc. and Bondex
International, Inc. filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Accordingly, the appeal was stayed by Clerk Order on June 18, 2010 pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 362. On October 12, 2010, we issued an order severing the case and lifting the
stay as to Appellees Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Union Carbide Corporation. The
appeal remains stayed as to all other defendants.

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-07-cv-63839)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
___________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 31, 2013
Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE, Circuit Judges, and
RAKOFF*, Senior District Judge.
(Filed: January 7, 2014)
___________
OPINION
___________
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Barbara Anderson appeals from an order of the District Court finding that her
proposed amended complaint did not relate back to her original pleading. Because we
agree with the District Court that the two pleadings did not arise out of the same
“conduct, transaction, or occurrence,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B), we will
affirm.
I.
On August 16, 2006, Barbara Anderson was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She
filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond on October 26, 2006,
alleging that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to “asbestos dust and fibers from
*

The Honorable Jed. S. Rakoff, United States Senior District Judge for the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 3

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

[her father’s] asbestos-laden workclothes.” (Appendix (“A.”) 60.) Anderson’s father
worked as a pipe cover insulator at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Anderson argued that
she was exposed to asbestos from 1947, when her father began working at the Shipyard,
until 1956. Anderson named more than twenty defendants, including Georgia-Pacific
Corporation (“Georgia-Pacific”), and Union Carbide Corporation (“Union Carbide”)
(collectively, “Appellees”), alleging she was entitled to recover under theories of
negligence and breach of warranty. Hoping to avoid removal to federal court, Anderson
also “disclaim[ed] any cause of action for any injuries caused by any exposure to asbestos
dust that occurred in a federal enclave.” (A. 65 ¶ 10.)
At the time she filed her original complaint, Anderson believed her only exposure
to asbestos occurred from 1947 to 1956, when she lived with her father while he was
working at the Naval Shipyard. When Anderson was subsequently deposed in January
2007, however, she testified that she believed she was also exposed to asbestos dust in
Federal office buildings where she worked during the 1960s and ‘70s.
Based on Anderson’s deposition testimony, Georgia-Pacific filed a notice of
removal, explaining that Anderson alleged asbestos exposure during her employment in
buildings located within federal enclaves, and that, as such, the action was removable
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The case proceeded in federal court as part of the asbestos
Multidistrict Litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Magistrate Judge
David Strawbridge oversaw the pretrial proceedings.
On May 21, 2009, several defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On
June 10, 2009, Anderson filed a motion to amend her original complaint. In addition to
3

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 4

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

removing the federal enclave disclaimer, her proposed amended complaint alleged that
she “was exposed to dust from asbestos-containing joint compound products during
ongoing construction and renovation projects taking place in the office buildings where
she worked” during the 1960s and ‘70s. (A. 578 ¶ 1.) Her amended complaint did not
include the allegations of household asbestos exposure during her childhood.
The Magistrate Judge denied Anderson’s motion for leave to amend, finding that
the proposed amended complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and
did not relate back to her original complaint because it alleged a subsequent phase of
asbestos exposure. Anderson filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order, which the
District Court overruled.
Anderson now appeals the District Court’s order overruling her objections,
arguing the District Court erred in finding that her amended complaint does not relate
back to her original pleading. Specifically, she argues the District Court erroneously
applied a standard for relation back that is limited to habeas corpus proceedings, and
erred in finding that notice to defendants of an amended claim must come from the
original complaint.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. We
have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over a district court’s interpretation and application of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Glover v. FDIC, 698 F.3d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 2012). However, we review a
district court’s factual conclusions as to a motion to amend for clear error, Singletary v.
4

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 5

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

Pa. Dep’t of Corrections, 266 F.3d 186, 193 (3d Cir. 2001), and its decision to grant or
deny a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d
244, 252 (3d Cir. 2008).
A.
Anderson first argues that the District Court misapplied Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15, which governs amended pleadings, by employing the Supreme Court’s
holding in Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005). She contends that Mayle established an
exacting test for relation back that should be limited to federal habeas corpus
proceedings.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides, in the context relevant here, that “a
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 counsels courts to “freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Id. However, “undue delay, bad faith, and futility”
justify a court’s denial of leave to amend, Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d
Cir. 2006), and amendment of a complaint is “futile” if “that claim would not be able to
overcome the statute of limitations.” Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286, 296 (3d Cir.

1

Appellees contend Anderson waived this argument because she failed to raise it
before the District Court. While they concede that Anderson presented a version of the
argument in footnote three of her Brief in Support of Her Objections, see (A. 727),
Appellees argue this was merely “[a] fleeting reference or vague allusion” that failed to
“present[] the argument with sufficient specificity to alert the district court.” In re Ins.
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 579 F.3d 241, 262 (3d Cir. 2009). We disagree.
Anderson’s explicit presentation of the issue was sufficient to preserve it for our review.
See id. (holding “explicit mention” and “brief discussion” of issues sufficient to preserve
for appellate review).
5

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 6

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

2001). Where a claim is barred by the statute of limitations, amendment is only
permitted if the proposed amended complaint “relates back to the date of the original
pleading” pursuant to Rule 15(c).
Here, it is undisputed that Anderson’s claims are governed by Virginia’s two-year
statute of limitations. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-243 and 8.01-249(4). It is also
undisputed that, unless the amended complaint relates back to her original complaint,
Anderson’s claims are time-barred.2
Rule 15(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n amendment to a pleading relates
back to the date of the original pleading when . . . the amendment asserts a claim or
defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or attempted to
be set out--in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B).3 We have interpreted

2

Virginia law requires personal injury claims to “be brought within two years
after the cause of action accrues.” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243. In cases alleging injury as
a result of asbestos exposure, the cause of action accrues “when a diagnosis of asbestosis,
interstitial fibrosis, mesothelioma, or other disabling asbestos-related injury or disease is
first communicated to the person or his agent by a physician.” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01249(4). Anderson was diagnosed with mesothelioma on August 16, 2006. Thus, the
statute of limitations period expired on August 16, 2008. Anderson did not move for
leave to amend her complaint until June 10, 2009, nearly ten months after the statute of
limitations had run.
3

The full text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1) provides:
(1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a
pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading
when:
(A) the law that provides the applicable statute of
limitations allows relation back;
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose
out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or
attempted to be set out-- in the original pleading; or
6

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 7

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

Rule 15(c) as requiring “a common core of operative facts in the two pleadings.” Bensel
v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 387 F.3d 298, 310 (3d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, proposed
amendments relate back if they “restate the original claim with greater particularity or
amplify the factual circumstances surrounding the pertinent conduct, transaction or
occurrence in the preceding pleading.” Id.
Interpreting Rule 15(c)’s application to petitions for habeas corpus, the Supreme
Court held that “[a]n amended habeas petition . . . does not relate back . . . when it asserts
a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the
original pleading set forth.” Mayle, 545 U.S. at 650. The Magistrate Judge quoted this
language in its Memorandum Opinion, noting that, although the Court decided Mayle in
the context of habeas corpus, the principle “applies equally here” because Mayle was
predicated on the relevant subsection of Rule 15(c). (A. 7.) The District Court adopted

(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the
party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule
15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided
by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the
party to be brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would
have been brought against it, but for a mistake
concerning the proper party’s identity.
Here, neither party asserts that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C) applies. The parties also agree
that section 15(c)(1)(A) is immaterial because it gives a party the benefit of whichever
standard for relation back is most lenient, and that the federal rule is “either equivalent to
or more lenient than its Virginia equivalent, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6.1.” (Appellant’s Br.
20.) Accordingly, our discussion focuses on Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B).
7

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 8

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge, but did not reference the “time and type” language
from Mayle. Instead, the District Court merely cited that case for the general “common
core of operative fact” test.
Nevertheless, Anderson argues the District Court erred in applying the standard
expounded in Mayle, which, she asserts, is more stringent than the standard for ordinary
civil cases. She urges that the proper inquiry is set out in Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
Co., 323 U.S. 574 (1945), where the Supreme Court held that an amended complaint
related back even though it added a new claim. In Tiller, a widow brought suit against a
railroad company after her husband was struck and killed by a railroad car. The original
complaint in Tiller alleged negligence for failure to provide a lookout who could warn of
coming trains, and the amended complaint alleged negligence for failure to properly light
the railroad car. Id. at 580. Asserting that, under Tiller, relation back is proper even if
the amended pleading alters the “mode in which the defendant breached the legal duty or
caused the injury,” (Appellant’s Br. 27 (citing Davis v. Yellow Cab Co., 35 F.R.D. 159,
161 (E.D. Pa. 1964)), Anderson argues her amended complaint relates back under this
standard.
We are not persuaded. First, we note that the District Court did not rely on the
Mayle “time and type” language, but instead applied the long-standing test for relation
back, which analyzes whether the amended complaint shares a “common core of
operative fact” with the original pleading. Bensel, 387 F.3d at 310.
Second, the Supreme Court’s analysis in Mayle was consistent with – not more
exacting than – its application of Rule 15(c) in other contexts. Mayle, 545 U.S. at 664
8

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 9

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

(“Our reading is consistent with the general application of Rule 15(c)(2).”). Indeed,
rather than holding that Rule 15(c) should be applied more rigorously in the habeas
context, the Supreme Court explained that it was reining in what it saw as the lower
courts’ more liberal construction of Rule 15(c) in habeas cases than in “run-of-the-mine
civil proceedings.” Id. at 657. Thus, we have utilized Mayle’s “time and type” language
in the non-habeas civil context. See Glover, 698 F.3d at 147 (“In other words,
[Appellant’s] amended FDCPA claims differed in ‘time and type’ from the claims earlier
alleged.”) (citing Mayle, 545 U.S. at 657-59).
Furthermore, Anderson does not meet the general standards for relation back as set
forth in Tiller or Bensel. Relation back under Rule 15(c) requires an amended complaint
to share a “common core of operative facts” with the original pleading. Bensel, 387 F.3d
at 310. Although Anderson characterizes her proposed amendment as merely “alter[ing]
the mode by which defendants caused the injury,” (Appellant’s Br. 17), her amended
complaint alleges entirely separate exposure years later while she herself was working.
We therefore agree with the District Court that “[t]he only thing that the two complaints
have in common is [Anderson] herself, and the unfortunate fact that she may have been
exposed to asbestos twice in her life, under unrelated circumstances.” (A. 22.) Thus, we
conclude that the District Court properly interpreted and applied Rule 15(c).
B.
Anderson next argues that she meets the requirements for relation back because
the defendants in this case had actual notice of her intent to pursue a claim based on her
workplace exposure to asbestos in the 1960s and ‘70s. Specifically, she asserts that the
9

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 10

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

District Court erred in finding that notice must come from the original pleading, and in
finding that her original complaint failed to put defendants on notice of her amended
claim.
We have explained that fair notice is “the touchstone for relation back . . . because
Rule 15(c) is premised on the theory that ‘a party who has been notified of litigation
concerning a particular occurrence has been given all the notice that statutes of
limitations were intended to provide.’” Glover, 698 F.3d at 146 (quoting Baldwin Cty.
Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149 n.3 (1984)). Our precedent states
unequivocally, however, that an amendment does not relate back “where the original
pleading does not give a defendant ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff’s [amended] claim is
and the grounds up on which it rests.’” Glover, 698 F.3d at 146 (quoting Baldwin, 466
U.S. at 149 n.3) (emphasis added). We therefore reject Anderson’s argument that notice
need not come from the original pleading.
We likewise reject Anderson’s contention that her original complaint put
Appellees on notice of her amended claim. The original complaint made no mention of
workplace exposure during the 1960s and ‘70s, and in fact explicitly disclaimed any
cause of action related to her employment within federal enclaves.
Accordingly, we agree with the District Court that Anderson was required to
provide fair notice in her original pleading of asbestos exposure in the workplace, and
that she failed to do so. Thus, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Anderson’s motion for leave to amend her pleadings.
III.
10

Case: 10-2306

Document: 003111498888

Page: 11

Date Filed: 01/07/2014

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

11