New York Law Review

Jones v. Bill, 10 N.Y.3d 550 (2008): Determining When an Action is “Commenced” Under the Graves Amendment

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

10 N.Y.3d 550 (2008)

Under New York law, for the purposes of the federal Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106), an action is “commenced” on the date of the initial filing of the summons and complaint, not the date of joinder of the vehicle lessor.

Summary

This case addresses the interpretation of the word “commenced” in the context of the federal Graves Amendment, which shields vehicle lessors from vicarious liability. Jones was injured in an accident with Bill. Jones sued Bill, who claimed he leased the vehicle from DCFS Trust. Jones then amended the complaint to add DCFS as a defendant. The issue was whether the action against DCFS was “commenced” when the initial suit was filed against Bill (before the Graves Amendment took effect) or when DCFS was added as a defendant (after the Amendment’s effective date). The Court of Appeals held that the action was commenced upon the initial filing, thus the Graves Amendment did not protect DCFS.

Facts

1. On July 7, 2005, Jones was injured in a car accident with Bill.
2. On August 8, 2005, Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill, identifying him as the “owner and operator” of the vehicle.
3. Bill’s answer denied ownership, stating he leased the vehicle from DCFS Trust.
4. On November 1, 2005, Jones filed an amended summons and complaint, adding DCFS as a defendant.
5. The Graves Amendment, which preempts state laws imposing vicarious liability on vehicle lessors, took effect on August 10, 2005.

Procedural History

1. Supreme Court granted DCFS’s motion to dismiss, holding the action against DCFS was commenced after the Graves Amendment’s effective date.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for reargument or leave to serve an amended complaint was denied.
3. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.
4. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether, for purposes of the federal Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106), an action is “commenced” on the date of the initial filing of the summons and complaint, or on the date of joinder of the vehicle lessor.

Holding

1. No, because under New York law, an action is “commenced” by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice (CPLR 304 [a]), and the federal statute does not specify a different meaning or require the vehicle lessor to be named as a party before its effective date.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Court relied on the plain language of CPLR 304(a), which states that an action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint.
2. The Court distinguished between when a claim is “interposed” and when an “action is commenced,” noting CPLR 203(c) uses this distinction.
3. The Court reasoned that related provisions of the CPLR, such as CPLR 305(a) and CPLR 1003, support the view that the “action” is already commenced when a new party is joined.
4. The Court noted that Congress’s understanding of “commencement” aligns with New York’s commencement-by-filing system, which is modeled on the federal counterpart (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 3).
5. The Court found no indication in the Graves Amendment that it bars vicarious claims asserted in an amended pleading in an action commenced before its effective date.
6. The Court stated: “Nothing in the language of the Graves Amendment suggests that it bars vicarious claims asserted in an amended pleading in an action commenced prior to its effective date.”
7. The court also found that the rule is “clear and easy-to-follow”.

More ARTICLES