Edenshaw v. Safeway Incorporated et al

Filing 17

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

GERALD EDENSHAW,
Plaintiff,
Case No. K05-0005 CV (RRB)

vs.
SAFEWAY INC., CARR’S QUALITY
CENTER, and SAFEWAY FOOD &
DRUG,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR DISMISSAL

Defendant.

Before the Court is Defendant Safeway, Inc., Carr’s
Quality Center and Safeway Food & Drug (“Defendant”) with a Motion
for Summary Judgment [or] Dismissal (Docket No. 12).

Defendant

argues the Court should dismiss this action for failure to state a
claim because the statute of limitations expired before the action
was

properly

filed

against

it.

Plaintiff

Gerald

Edenshaw

(“Plaintiff”) opposes at Docket No. 14 and argues the present
matter should not be dismissed because,
The filing of an amended complaint did not add
a further cause of action nor did it add an
additional party.
The amendment simply
clarifies and correctly identifies the exact

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL - 1
K05-0005 CV (RRB)

corporate
name
under
which
[Defendant]
operates
it’s
[sic]
subsidiary
stores
utilizing the names of Carr’s and Safeway
Drug.1
The Court agrees.
In essence, “[w]hat is really at issue is the ability of
a Plaintiff to correctly identify a Defendant by adding its legal
name, to the d/b/a/ names used in the initial filing.”2

Therefore,

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)(B),3 and because Defendant was
clearly placed on notice that a suit had been brought against it,
as of the filing of Plaintiff’s original Complaint,4 Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [or] Dismissal (Docket No. 12) is
hereby DENIED.

1

Clerk’s Docket No. 14 at 1-2.

2

Clerk’s Docket No. 14 at 4.

3

Fed R. Civ. P. 15 provides in relevant part:

(c) Relation Back of Amendments.
An amendment of a
pleading relates back to the date of the original
pleading when
(3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the
party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing
provision (2) is satisfied and, within the period
provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and
complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A)
has received such notice of the institution of the action
that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a
defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known
that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the
proper party, the action would have been brought against
the party.
4

See Clerk’s Docket No. 1, Ex. A.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL - 2
K05-0005 CV (RRB)

Moreover, the Court notes State Superior Court Judge
Thompson previously addressed the present matter before removal and
denied the same.5

Consequently, utilizing its broad discretion,

the Court further concludes Judge Thompson’s ruling is the “law of
the case.”6
ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Id., Ex. M.

6

The law of the case doctrine provides:

[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision
should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent
stages of the same case. Unlike the doctrine of stare
decisis, however, law of the case is a discretionary
doctrine . . . .
The law of the case will not be
enforced where it is clearly erroneous or where doing so
would produce an injustice.
Clerk’s Docket No. 16 at 4 (citation omitted).
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL - 3
K05-0005 CV (RRB)