WPCO I9@RױcJ9FӀ|{o%_ abKnh+BurD#jG5 Vоt"ԡrKVC/#R|C =kkcs%% ojO<$yTӊs-B*LAm7j?}fL/ZT3M;^7l#XzbohJdt}"am@DWNˆz\2g]l3ʮ?Mr`R(b;_!8 K * ~Cc3K[ZϞ1=nx.aeQ2\ǪI&Quab#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;==EEGU@]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]b 0Y 0N 0LLLL B77 0T D3 D-+ 0KXX AS 0 0D` AHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0ʖq) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularuV):i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    e (9 Z(Times New Roman - -64Hyperlink    (O$(|G2$ !.8ddd8         0  XX d(|3$ !.8ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _d8XXdd8O@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @55October2,2000Session 0 XXd #dXXô#  E.L.BILLINGSLEYANDONEIDAFARMS,INC.v.ALVIND.ESCUEXXd   ( @  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty   @ No.155099Hon.DaleC.Workman,CircuitJudge    _   `    _ h FILEDNOVEMBER17,_2000_@*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200000463COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<n` A o  TheTrialJudgegranteddefendantsummaryjudgmentongroundstheactionwastimebarred.We N affirm. > #dXXF#XXd Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  ^ HerschelPickensFranks#dXÜ#XX.d,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#dXb#XX.d . P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,#dX#XX.dԀJ.,joined.  CharlesA.Wagner,IIIandW.TurnerBoone,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellants,E.L.Billingsley   andOneidaFarms,Inc. !  W.MorrisKizer,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellee,AlvinD.Escue. n#" @55' OPINION #dXXi#XXdԈ .'~"&   XXXX 0  0` (#(# ` (#` (#    ` PlaintiffsMaliciousProsecutionaction,wasdismissedbytheTrialJudgeonthe *:&* groundsthatitwastimebarredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotated283104(a)(1). +&'+    ` OnApril1,1998,EscueandOneidaWoodProducts,Inc.broughtanaction, -(-  includingE.L.BillingsleyandOneidaFarms,Inc.,asdefendants,onthebasisofallegedviolations  oftheFederalRacketeerInfluencedandCorruptOrganizationsAct.       ` Defendantsinthatcasemovedfororamoredefinitestatement,andanAgreedOrder t wasentered,whichprovidedthat_Escue_ԀandOneidaWoodwouldfileanamendedcomplaint. `      ` OnAugust6,1998,_Escue_ԀandOneidaWoodfiledaCaseStatementwhichstatedthat 8  mostof_Escue_sclaimswerederivativeandtheamendedComplaintwouldeliminate_Escue_Ԁasa $ t party.OnthesamedateOneidaWoodfiledthePlaintiffsAmendedandRestatedComplaintwhich  ` didnotlist_Escue_snameinthecaption,andstatedthatit isfiledpursuanttotheAgreeOrderon  L  MotionsforCaseStatementand/orMoreDefiniteStatemententeredinthismatter._Escue_Ԁwasnot  8  namedasaplaintiffintheAmendedandRestatedComplaintandsoughtnorelieftherein. $     ` _Billingsley_ԀandOneidaFarmsfiledamotionforadditionaltimeonAugust19,1998.   ByletterdatedAugust27,1998,counselfor_Billingsley_Ԁstatedto_Escue_scounselthat Your   AmendedandRestatedComplaintmakesclearthatAlvin_Escue_Ԁisabandoninghisclaimsagainst   thedefendants.Therefore,itisappropriateforyoutofileaStipulationofDismissalonAlvin   _Escue_sbehalf.OnSeptember3,1998,_Escue_ԀfiledaNoticeofDismissalpursuanttoRule41(a)(1) p oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure. \      ` ThenonAugust30,1999,_Billingsley_ԀandOneidaFarmsfiledthepresentmalicious 4 prosecutionactionagainst_Escue_,andonmotionof_Escue_ԀtheTrialJudgeenteredanOrderof  p Dismissal.  \    ` Anactionformaliciousprosecutionmustbecommencedwithinoneyearafterthe 4 causeofactionaccrued.TennesseeCodeAnnotated283104(a)(1)(Supp.1999).Acauseof   actionformaliciousprosecutionaccrueswhentheotherelementsoftheoffensearepresent,and   whenthemalicioussuitisterminatedinthedefendantsfavor.Christianv._Lapidus_,833S.W.2d  71,73(Tenn.1992);Rosenv.Levy,120Tenn.642,648,113S.W.1042,1044(1908).       ` Thecrucialelementinplayinthisactionisthattheprioractionwasterminatedin l favoroftheplaintiff.Christian  ,atp.73.InChristian,theTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthatthe X  abandonmentofacivilactionsatisfiesthethirdelement, finalandfavorabletermination,soasto D! commencetherunningoftheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Id.at74. 0"       ` TheChristianCourtmakesclearthatanamendedcomplaintsupersedestheoriginal $X" complaint,renderingtheoriginalcomplaintofnolegaleffect.Accordingly,Christiancontrolsthe $D # presentcase.TheoriginalcomplaintintheFederalactionwasfiledonApril1,1998,andinAugust %0!$ of1998,OneidaWoodProductsfiledthePlaintiffsAmendedandRestatedComplaint.The &"% attorneywhowascounseltoboth_Escue_ԀandOneidaWood,doesnotstatethathewassigningsolely '#& onbehalfofWood.TheAmendedComplaintdoesnotincorporateorreferbacktotheoriginal (#' complaint,andhastheeffectofsupercedingtheoriginal,renderingitofnolegaleffect. )$(      ` InaccordwithChristian,thelegaleffectoftheAmendedComplaintwastoremove h+&* O e   _Escue_Ԁfromthelawsuitandconstitutedanabandonmentby_Escue_ԀofhisRICOclaimsagainst e _Billingsley_ԀandOneidaFarms.Assuch,thestatuteoflimitationsbegantorunfromthetimeof Q abandonment,orthefilingoftheAmendedComplaint,andnotthesubsequentfilingoftheRule41 = noticeofdismissal. )      ` #  X X# XX  #XXX X/ #XXXXWhileappellantsarguestrenuouslythattheirtimedidnotbeginrunninguntil_Escue_   filedhisnoticeof_dismsisal_ԀpursuanttoRule41(a)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,the   languageofRule41(a)(1)ispermissiveinthatitdoesnotstatethatitistheonlywaytovoluntarily  t dismissanaction.Appellantsargue,however,thatitistheonlymethod,citing_Oglala_ԀSiouxTribe  ` v._Homestake_ԀMiningCo.,_7228  #XXXX\ #XXXXԀF.2d1407(8thCir.1983).Appellantsrelianceonthatcaseis  L  misplaced.Inthatcase,theCourtnotedthatthe_Oglaga_ԀSiouxTribedidnothingtoobtaina  8  dismissalunderRule41,nordidtheygiveanytypeofnoticethattheydidnotintendtobeaparty $  tothatpriorlitigation.722F.2dat14131414.Therefore,theCourtfound,the_Oglala_ԀSioux u  remainedapartythroughoutthelitigationandwereboundbyresjudicata.Id.at1414. a       ` Inthiscase,notonlywas_Escue_sintentionclear,buttheamendedcomplaintthatwas 9  filedhadtheeffectofremovinghimfromthelawsuit,andasChristianrecognizedanamended % complaintcouldhavetheeffectofdismissinganactionbyrenderingthefirstcomplaintofnolegal  effect.       ` AppellantsrelianceonLynchv.NewDealDeliveryService,Inc . ,974F.Supp.441 p (_D.N.J._Ԁ1997)isequallyunavailing.InLynch,thePlaintiffattemptedto withdrawoneofher \ countsbywayofafootnoteintheargumentsectionofherbriefinoppositiontosummaryjudgment. H TheCourtheldthatshecouldnotvoluntarilydismissaclaiminthismanner.Id.at455.Appellants 4 inthiscasecontendthataccordingtothisholdinginLynch, Theshortremarkonpage16ofthe   CaseStatementwasalsonotsufficienttodismiss_Escue_ԀfromtheRICOActionunderRule41(a). q       ` TheTrialCourtdidnotbaseitsdecisiononthisremark,buthefoundthatthe I amendedcomplaintsupercededtheoriginalcomplaint,thusconstitutinganabandonment,thebasis 5 ofwhichwasestablishedbyChristian. !    ` Further,appellantsarguethat_Escue_Ԁisequitablyandjudicially_estopped_Ԁfrom   claimingthathevoluntarilydismissedhisRicoActionatanytimebeforeSeptember3,1998when !  hefiledhisnoticeofdismissalpursuanttotheFederalRules.Wenotethatestoppelwasnotraised "l! bythepartiesatthetriallevel,andtheissueofestoppelmaynotberaisedforthefirsttimeon #X" appeal.SeeLawrencev.Stanford,655S.W.2d927,929(Tenn.1983).However,appellantsargue $D # thatwhiletheydidnotusetheterm estoppel,thesubstanceoftheirargumentincludedestoppel. %0!$ Wefindnosupportforthiscontentionintherecord.TheirpositionintheTrialCourtwasthata &"% dismissalmustconformtotheexactlanguageofRule41andthereisnootherwayforapartyto m'#& voluntarilyendhisaction.Moreover,_Escue_Ԁmadehispositioncleartoappellantsatthetimeofthe Y(#' filingoftheAmendedComplaint,andtherewasnochangeinpositiontomisleadappellantssoas E)$( tocreateanestoppel. 1*%)      `  Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandassesscost  ,'+ oftheappealto_E.L._Ԁ_Billingsley_ԀandOneidaFarms,Inc. e    `     h #XXXXy##XXXX    _________________________     `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J.   #XXX(3##dX #XXd