Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Doe

210 So.3d 41

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, etc., Petitioner,

v.Janie DOE 1, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. SC13–1834

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 26, 2017]

Shannon Patricia McKenna of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, Florida, for Petitioner

Marc A. Wites of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., Lighthouse Point, Florida, for Respondents

QUINCE, J.

The Palm Beach County School Board seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Janie Doe 1 ex rel. Miranda v. Sinrod , 117 So.3d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other district courts of appeal on a question of law concerning the relation back doctrine. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the Fourth District's decision below, reversing the trial court's dismissal of Respondents' Title IX claim, and disapprove the line of cases that establishes a bright-line rule that an amendment asserting a new cause of action cannot relate back to the filing of the original complaint.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case involves allegations of sexual abuse of four female students by their teacher. Sinrod , 117 So.3d at 787. In July 2006, Respondents—the four students and their parents—filed a complaint against the teacher and the Palm Beach County School Board alleging negligence on the part of the School Board, that the teacher sexually molested the children, and that the parents suffered emotional distress as a result. Id. at 787–88. In 2011, Respondents filed their third amended complaint, alleging negligent supervision, negligent retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 788. Respondents also added a claim for violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,¹ which prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal education funding. Id. at 788 & n.2 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ; Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. , 544 U.S. 167, 173, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005) ). The School Board moved to dismiss the Title IX claim—and one other claim not relevant here—arguing that it was barred by the statute of limitations because it did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Id. at 788. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claim, and Respondents appealed. Id.

Upon review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Title IX claim did, in fact, relate back to the original negligence claims. Id. at 790. The district court indicated that amendments raising a new cause of action generally do not relate back to the original complaint. Id. at 789. However, the court clarified that "a new cause of action—and even a new legal theory—can relate back to the original pleading so long as the new claim is not based on different facts, such that the defendant would not have ‘fair notice of the general factual situation.’ " Id. (quoting Dailey v. Leshin , 792 So.2d 527, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ). The Fourth District found that the Title IX claim arose from the same conduct and resulted in the same injury as the original negligence claims and therefore relates back to the filing of the original complaint under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c). Id. at 789–90. The School Board now appeals this determination.

ANALYSIS

A trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is subject to de novo review. Mender v. Kauderer , 143 So.3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc. , 48 So.3d 864, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The determination of whether an amended complaint relates back to the filing of the original complaint is a question of law, also reviewed de novo. Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney , 137 So.3d 987, 991 (Fla. 2014) ; Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc. , 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). An amended complaint raising claims for which the statute of limitations has expired can survive a motion to dismiss if the claims relate back to the timely filed initial pleading. Flores , 35 So.3d at 147. Thus, the conflict issue here is whether Respondents' third amended complaint, which added a new claim alleging violations of Title IX, relates back to the filing of the initial complaint under rule 1.190(c). Rule 1.190 governs amended pleadings and defines the relation back doctrine as follows: "When the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading , the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c) (emphasis added).

There are two lines of district court cases interpreting the operation of the relation back doctrine in Florida. The first holds that an amended pleading does not relate back if it states a new, different, or distinct cause of action from the original pleading. Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Wolentarski , 2 So.3d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ; Page v. McMullan , 849 So.2d 15, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating that amendments "may not be used to avoid the statute of limitations if the amendment sets forth a new and distinct cause of action"); Arnwine v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, N.A. , 818 So.2d 621, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("[E]ntirely new and separate causes of action will not relate back."); W. Volusia Hosp. Auth. v. Jones , 668 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (explaining that relation back is not permitted where amendment states a new and distinct cause of action); Daniels v. Weiss , 385 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). For example, in Arnwine , the plaintiff's original complaint alleged causes of action against the defendant bank for reconstruction of lost instruments, conversion, accounting, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Arnwine , 818 So.2d at 625. The amended complaint alleged the same causes of action, but also included a new claim for civil conspiracy. Id. The Second District found that the trial court did not err in dismissing this new claim because "[w]hile the allegations of this count arise from the same set of operative facts alleged in the original complaint, civil conspiracy is, in fact, an entirely new cause of action" that does not relate back. Id. at 625–26.

The second line of cases instead follows the exact language of rule 1.190(c) —allowing relation back where the claims from the amended pleading arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as in the original, timely filed complaint. Armiger , 48 So.3d at 870 ; Flores , 35 So.3d at 147. In other words, as long as the initial complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the general factual scenario or factual underpinning of the claim, amendments stating new legal theories can relate back. Fabbiano v. Demings , 91 So.3d 893, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ; Flores , 35 So.3d at 148 ; Kiehl v. Brown , 546 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This is true even where the legal theory of recovery has changed² or where the original and amended claims require the assertion of different elements.³

In Armiger , the plaintiff sued a company and its janitorial service provider after he slipped and fell on the company's property. Armiger , 48 So.3d at 866. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action as against the company because the complaint did not allege breach of a nondelegable duty or vicarious liability and there was no basis for a negligence claim against the company directly. Id. The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint accordingly, but the court denied the motion, reasoning that the statute of limitations had expired and the proposed amendment would not relate back. Id. On appeal, the Second District found that even though it stated a new cause of action, the proposed amendment would relate back because the claims alleged therein were based on the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as those in the first amended complaint. Id. at 872. The court explained that "[a]lthough the first amended complaint does not plainly state the breach of a [nondelegable] duty, the applicability of the doctrine of nondelegable duty under the facts alleged is apparent." Id. ; see also Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 145 So.3d 183, 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding that wrongful death claim and personal injury claim arose out of same transaction because both were based on decedent's claim of injury due to smoking cigarettes); Mender , 143 So.3d at 1014–15 (finding relation back where "the characterization of the complaint as individual or derivative did not alter the underlying facts, circumstances, or parties, and gave fair notice to all parties of the general fact situation out of which the claims arose").

Essentially, this second line of cases holds that the assertion of a new claim in an amendment is not dispositive as to whether the amendment can relate back. However, these cases recognize that a newly added claim could fail to meet the relation back test if the new claim is so factually distinct that it does not arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original. See Fabbiano , 91 So.3d at 894–95 (explaining that cases such as West Volusia Hospital Authority do not stand for the principle that "an amendment involving a new cause of action never relates back" under rule 1.190 but instead "pertain to a narrow set of circumstances wherein the proposed amendment, although emanating from the same set of operative facts, involved a factually distinct claim ").⁴

In Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney , 137 So.3d 987 (Fla. 2014), we had before us the issue of "whether an amended complaint, naming a third-party defendant as a party defendant, relates back to the filing of the third-party complaint for statute of limitations purposes." Id. at 989. We found that the amended complaint related back because the third-party complaint put the third-party...