(a) The Court should grant Adam's motion to amend because that is the proper vehicle for correcting a misnomer of a party, as was done here.

Under the Virginia rules of civil procedure, a court should liberally grant motions to amend in the interest of justice, unless doing so would be prejudicial to the opposing party. When a plaintiff has correctly identified the entity against which it has a claim, but does not use the entity's correct legal name in the proceeding, this is a misnomer. A misnomer can be corrected by a motion to amend the complaint to identify the correct legal name of the entity. A misjoinder occurs when a party seeks to join a party to a lawsuit who was not previously named in the lawsuit. A party is misjoined if they are not property joinded to the party occording to the rules for joinder.

Here, IM's assertion that the court should deny the motion to amend on the basis that Adam's mistake was a misjoinder is misplaced. As discussed, a misjoinder relates to the joinder of a party to the lawsuit, whereas a misnomer relates to the incorrect legal name of a party to the lawsuit. Here, Adam's mistake was a misnomer and the mistake should be corrected by a motion to amend the complaint to correctly name the party. The court should grant this motion because there is no prejudice to IM from the misnomer, as IM was properly served and understood the nature of Adam's claim and against whom he was asserting the claim.

(b) Adam's cause of action is based on injury or damage to personal property. Actions for personal property have a statute of limitations of 5 years in Virginia.

Here, Adam's claim is based on damage to his laptop while at the Mall. His laptop is a piece of personal property. Actions related to personal property, including damage to personal property, detinue, or conversion have a statute of limitations of 5 years.

(c) The court should rule against IM on its plea in bar because Adam has met the statute of limitations period and his amendment will relate back to the filing of the original complaint.

As discussed, the statute of limitations for Adam's claim is five years. The statute begins to run when the cause of action accrues. In the case of damage to personal property, the action accrues on the day the property is damaged. The statute of limitations is tolled by the timely filing of a complaint. Amendments to the complaint which add claims or parties may be tolled by the filing of the complaint and relate back to the date of original filing for purposes of the statute of limitations. In order for an amendment for the addition or correction of a misidentified party to relate back to the filing of the complaint, the claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence of the original complaint, the party being added must have had actual notice of the complaint against it within the statute of limitations period plus one year, and the party must have known that the claim would be brought against it but for a mistake of identification on the part of the plaintiff.

Here, the court should rule against IM on its plea in bar because the statute of limitations period is met. Adam's cause of action accrued on February 1, 2020 when his laptop was damaged. The statute of limitations is five years, which would have ended on February 1, 2025. Here, Adam timely filed the complaint on April 1, 2024. Adam had one year in order to timely serve the complaint, which he did on January 31, 2025. Although Adam misnamed the proper party to be sued, IM received actual notice of Adam's claim on January 31, 2025, which is within the time period required for relation back. Adam's amendment to the complaint, although outside the 5 year limitations period, will relate back to his filing on April 1, 2024 because IM had actual notice and the claim arises out of the same set of operative facts as the original complaint, which is that Adam's laptop was damaged at the Mall. IM should have known that Adam's claim was against IM, even though Adam mistakenly identified the party as the Fair Oaks Shopping Center. IM operates the Fair Oaks Shopping Center and understands that that is the name the public associates with the legal entity. Additionally, Adam's complaint was likely sufficient to put it on notice that his claim should be brought against IM as the legal entity behind the shopping center. Thus, because all the requirements for relation back are met, the court should deny the plea in bar because Adam's claim was timely filed.

(a) The court should rule that Adam’s amendment properly corrected a misnomer and that substitution of IM, Inc. for Friar Oaks Shopping Center relates back to the date of filing for statute of limitations purposes.

Under Virginia law, a party can amend a complaint to correct for a misnomer, which occurs when the party uses the defendant’s incorrect name but identifies the correct defendant. A misjoinder occurs when the plaintiff names the complete wrong defendant (wrong identity as opposed simply to wrong name). An amendment cannot correct a misjoinder because the lawsuit is essentially a nullity to the correct party. The solution is to file a new, completely different lawsuit against the correct party.

Here, the amendment likely corrects a misnomer rather than a misjoinder. Adam named the Friar Oaks Shopping Center, but no such company with that name exists. However, Adam sued Friar Oaks Shopping Center as the owner and operator of the mall. Therefore, it is clear he is suing whatever entity owns and operates the mall. This is IM, Inc. Therefore, because it is a misnomer, Adam can correct the mistake by an amendment. If there had been an entity with the name “Friar Oaks Shopping Center,” then Adam likely would have identified the wrong party rather than just misnamed it and would be precluded from correcting that through an amendment. However, IM, Inc. has a strong argument that the amendment corrects a misjoinder. Adam did not sure IN, Inc. or merely misspell IM, Inc.’s name. It sued an entity that did not exist. It also named the entity instead of stating generally that it was suing the owner and operator of the mall. A more general statement might have been broad enough to constitute a misnomer rather than a misjoinder. This is a close call but likely should be considered a misnomer.

An amendment to correct a misnomer relates back to the original date of filing the complaint if (1) the amended complaint involves the same claim as the original (arises from the same transaction or occurrence), (2) the correct defendant received notice of the complaint within the statute of limitations period, (3) the defendant is not prejudiced in mounting its defense, and (4) the defendant knew that but for the mistake, the case should have originally been brought against it.

Adam can meet all these requirements. The amended complaint includes the same claim of negligence related to the incident where a display fell from the ceiling of the mall and destroyed his laptop. IM, Inc. had notice of the complaint within the statute of limitations period, which as explained below is 5 years, and IM, Inc. had actual notice when Adam served the complaint on the president of IM, Inc. on January 31, 2015. Because IM, Inc. received notice, it is not prejudiced in mounting its defense. It showed that it is able to hire a lawyer and mount a defense by entering a special appearance to object to the motion to amend and file a plea in bar that the statute of limitations had run. Finally, it knew that but for the mistake, it should have been the one that Adam sued because it received notice of the complaint and saw that Adam sought to hold the owner and operator of the mall liable, which is IM, Inc.

Therefore, not only can Adam correct the misnomer, but the misnomer relates back to the date that Adam filed the suit, which is April 1, 2014.

(b) The statute of limitations is 5 years for injury to property, and it accrued on the date of injury.

Under Virginia law, an action has a statute of limitations of 2 years if the party seeks to recover for personal injury, regardless of the theory of recovery. Virginia does not have a statute of limitations period for negligence actions; rather, the period depends on the relief sought. For an action related to injury to property, the statute of limitations period is 5 years. This period accrues on the date of injury to the property.

Here, Adam was shopping at the mall when a display fell from the ceiling and knocked an expensive laptop out of his hand, destroying it. Adam eventually sued, seeking compensation for damage to his laptop. This is recovery for injury to property rather than injury to his person. Therefore, the statute of limitations period is 5 years rather than the 2 allowed for recovery of personal injury. The accident occurred February 1, 2010, so Adam had 5 years from that date in which to sue. Based on judicial counting, he had until February 1, 2015, to bring suit (this is because when counting years, the deadline ends on the day that the incident occurred). This is why in the above question, IM, Inc. received notice within the statute of limitations period becasue it received service of the complaint on January 31, 2015.

Adam’s cause of action has a 5-year statute of limitation.

(c) If the court rules that the lawsuit was properly amended, the court should rule that the statute of limitations has not run against IM, Inc.

An amendment to correct a misnomer relates back to the original date of filing the complaint if (1) the amended complaint involves the same claim as the original (arises from the same transaction or occurrence), (2) the correct defendant received notice of the complaint within the statute of limitations period, (3) the defendant is not prejudiced in mounting its defense, and (4) the defendant knew that but for the mistake, the case should have originally been brought against it.

Adam can meet all these requirements. The amended complaint includes the same claim of negligence related to the incident where a display fell from the ceiling of the mall and destroyed his laptop. IM, Inc. had notice of the complaint within the statute of limitations period, which as explained below is 5 years, and IM, Inc. had actual notice when Adam served the complaint on the president of IM, Inc. on January 31, 2015. Because IM, Inc. received notice, it is not prejudiced in mounting its defense. It showed that it is able to hire a lawyer and mount a defense by entering a special appearance to object to the motion to amend and file a plea in bar that the statute of limitations had run. Finally, it knew that but for the mistake, it should have been the one that Adam sued because it received notice of the complaint and saw that Adam sought to hold the owner and operator of the mall liable, which is IM, Inc.

As explained in (a), the amendment to correct the misnomer will relate back to when Adam initially filed the complaint. He filed April 1, 2014, which is within the 5-year statute of limitation period. He had until February 1, 2015, to file. Therefore, it does not matter that the amendment occurred February 15, 2015, after the statute of limitations period had run. The amendment relates back to April 1, 2014, in large part because IM, Inc. received notice of the complaint through proper service before the limitations period ran on February 1, 2015.

The court should therefore deny IM, Inc.’s plea in bar.