Paatalo v. First American Title Company of Montana, Inc. et al
Filing
51
ORDER granting 41 Motion to Amend/Correct (Motion to File as a Separate Document Stillwater Abstract Company, d/b/a Stillwater Abstract & Title Co., Inc., and Shelly Noe's "Statement of Undisputed Facts") - Statement of Undisputed Facts due by 3/12/2014 ; granting 43 Motion to Amend/Correct: The Caption is hereby AMENDED to reflect Stillwaterscorrect name as "Stillwater Abstract Company, d/b/a StillwaterAbstract & Title Co., Inc." Signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn S Ostby on 3/5/2014. (Hard copy to W. Paatalo) (JDH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
WILLIAM J. PAATALO,
CV-13-128-BLG-SEH-CSO
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY OF MONTANA,
INC., et al.
Defendants.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This action concerns transactions involving a home loan. Six
motions are pending. This Order addresses two motions: (1) motion to
file a separate “Statement of Undisputed Facts” (ECF 41), and (2)
motion to amend the caption (ECF 43).1 Both motions will be granted
for the reasons set forth below.
On December 3, 2013, Stillwater Abstract Company, d/b/a
Stillwater Abstract & Title Co., Inc. (“Stillwater”) and Shelly Noe
(“Noe”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 27) and Brief in
1
“ECF” refers to the document as numbered in the Court’s
Electronic Case Files. See The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation,
§ 10.8.3.
-1-
Support (ECF 29). The brief contains a narrative of undisputed facts
supporting the motion, but Stillwater and Noe did not file a separate
statement of undisputed facts (“SUF”) as required by Local Rule
56.1(a)(3).
On January 6, 2014, Stillwater and Noe filed a motion to file their
SUF as a separate document to comply with Local Rule 56.1. ECF 41.
Stillwater has also filed a motion to amend the caption to reflect its
correct legal name. ECF 43. Paatalo objects to both motions.
II.
MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
A.
Parties’ Arguments
Defendants argue that the relief they seek is authorized by Rule
56(e)(1)2 and the Court’s inherent authority to correct the form of
pleadings. Defts’ Br. in Support (ECF 42) at 2. Defendants further
argue that this relief will not prejudice Paatalo because the SUF they
seek to file, attached to their brief at ECF 42-1, is substantively
identical to the facts set forth in their summary judgment brief. Id.
Paatalo has filed a single brief opposing both this motion and
Stillwater’s motion to amend the caption. As to the motion to file a
2
Reference to the Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
-2-
separate SUF, Paatalo argues that the motion should be denied
because Stillwater and Noe failed to seek leave of Court “per MRCP
15(a)(2)” prior to filing its motion, and because Stillwater is a
“stranger” to this action with no authority to file the motion. Pltf’s Br.
(ECF 47) at 2-3, 9-10.
B.
Discussion
Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a party filing a motion for
summary judgment must also file a Statement of Undisputed Facts
separately from the motion and brief. L.R. 56.1(a)(1)-(3). Stillwater
and Noe did not initially comply with this rule. But they represent –
and the Court has confirmed – that the proposed SUF is identical in
substance to the section of their brief titled “UNDISPUTED FACTS”,
except that the SUF has been serially numbered and a citation to the
Court’s electronic record has been added.
A district court’s “local rule imposing a requirement of form must
not be enforced in a way that causes a party to lose any right because of
a nonwillful failure to comply.” Rule 83(a)(2). There is no indication
that Defendants’ failure to file a separate SUF was willful. The Court
can discern no delay or prejudice that will result from granting this
motion. Defendants’ requested relief is appropriate.
-3-
III. MOTION TO AMEND CAPTION
A.
Parties’ Arguments
Stillwater has filed a separate motion to correct its legal name in
this litigation and amend the caption accordingly. ECF 43. Stillwater
argues that a motion to correct a misnomer of a party should be freely
granted under Rule 15(a). Stillwater also argues that its motion should
be granted to ensure “that any judgment entered in this action
correctly identifies the partes and precludes multiple suits and
misunderstandings regarding the identity of parties.” ECF 44 at 3.
In response, Paatalo argues that Stillwater intentionally failed to
timely file a corporate disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 7.1, and
should therefore be prohibited from now changing its name. Pltf’s Br.
(ECF 47) at 4, 9. Paatalo also argues that Stillwater should not be
allowed to change its identity to a company that did not exist prior to
the filing of the Amended Complaint. Id. at 7.
B.
Discussion
Stillwater’s motion seeks to clarify that its correct legal name is
“Stillwater Abstract Company, d/b/a Stillwater Abstract & Title Co.,
Inc.” rather than “Stillwater Abstract & Title” as pled in Paatalo’s
-4-
Amended Complaint.3 Stillwater does not otherwise dispute that it is,
in fact, the entity named in the Amended Complaint as “Stillwater
Abstract & Title” and the entity named as the Trustee on Paatalo’s
Deed of Trust. See ECF 49 at 2-3, FN 2.
This type of misnomer may be corrected by an amendment
pursuant to Rule 15. See F.R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3), Advisory Committee
Notes 1991 Amendment (“An intended defendant who is notified of an
action within the period allowed ... for service of a summons and
complaint may not under the revised rule defeat the action on account
of a defect in the pleading with respect to the defendant’s name.... [A]
complaint may be amended at any time to correct a formal defect such
as a misnomer or misidentification”).
Under Rule 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” This Court has recognized that “there is a
difference between correcting a misnomer and changing a party” and
has found that a mere misnomer may be corrected under the
amendment power expressed in Rule 15. Wentz v. Alberto Culver Co.,
3
The affidavit of Shelly Noe, with attached records from the
Montana Secretary of State confirm that Stillwater’s correct legal name
is “Stillwater Abstract Company d/b/a Stillwater Abstract & Title Co.,
Inc.” See Noe Affidavit (ECF 29-1) at 2-3; ECF 29-1 at 18-20.
-5-
294 F. Supp. 1327, 1328 (D. Mont. 1969) (construing 1966 version of
Rule 15); see also Mitchell v. CFC Fin. LLC, 230 F.R.D. 548, 550 (E.D.
Wis. 2005) (“Courts consistently allow relation back when plaintiffs
make mistakes of this type [i.e. misstating the name of a corporation]
because the correct defendant is already before the court, is aware that
it is being sued, and will suffer no prejudice from the amendment”).
Along these lines, the Fourth Circuit has observed:
A suit at law is not a children’s game, but a serious effort on the
part of adult human beings to administer justice; and the purpose
of process is to bring parties into court. If it names them in such
terms that every intelligent person understands who is meant ...
it has fulfilled its purpose; and courts should not put themselves
in the position of failing to recognize what is apparent to everyone
else.... As a general rule the misnomer of a corporation in a notice,
summons ... or other step in a judicial proceeding is immaterial if
it appears that [the corporation] could not have been, or was not,
misled.
Morrel v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 188 F.3d 218, 224 (4th Cir.
1999) (quotation omitted) (alterations in original).
Here, Paatalo successfully effectuated service on Stillwater, and
Stillwater has appeared and answered the Amended Complaint.
Stillwater, from its first appearance in the case, has consistently
indicated that its correct legal name is “Stillwater Abstract Company,
d/b/a Stillwater Abstract & Title Co., Inc.” See Stillwater’s Answer
-6-
(ECF 5). Correcting Stillwater’s name and amending the caption
accordingly will have no adverse effect on Paatalo and will not delay
this litigation. The Court will grant Stillwater’s motion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Stillwater’s and Noe’s Motion to File Statement of
Undisputed Facts as a Separate Document (ECF 41) is GRANTED.
Stillwater and Noe must file their Statement of Undisputed Facts on or
before March 12, 2014.
2.
Stillwater’s Motion to Amend Caption (ECF 43) is
GRANTED. The Caption is hereby AMENDED to reflect Stillwater’s
correct name as “Stillwater Abstract Company, d/b/a Stillwater
Abstract & Title Co., Inc.”
DATED this 5th day of March, 2014.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?