WPC:( )Xqj:uT&kwBy7ܓ=VZY`fQAQ=d.njeGc-okOzVx*59Ђ?$0 Z/Ԡ tO8n# SkoKs ?kNoTt\B:&1Q#Ϭfq>B:XB "Ӫ(WX}]['oGG.kY 0'H;_&7u_ IIkAFa=Ud u 7<]QY<(IÌ}m*f:)#X{ebh2N9oQX sb xun1un%r7ho o\- ¢84MwhF"[ WKx4؋bؐ쯺er;2UE\+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  - -(8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  (|G2$ !.8I}dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8I}dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8I}dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8I}dd8     _=I}dd=   I}8XXdd8W<I}@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE &   #I}W<7#September5,2001SessionXXI} L  #I}XX#CLARAFRAZIERv.EASTTENNESSEEBAPTISTHOSPITAL,INC.,et J al. XXI}  ^ @@ AppealfromtheCourtofAppeals,EasternSection  J CircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  6  @@No.129998DaleC.Workman,Judge "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200000686SCR11CVFiledSeptember28,_2001_   AV) ` dE<h` A i    OnMay8,1998,plaintiff,inhercapacityasestateadministrator,broughtthismedicalmalpractice d claimagainstdefendantEastTennesseeBaptistHospitalandMarkW.Jackson,M.D.,inKnox P CountyCircuitCourt.OnAugust7,1998,plaintiffmovedforandwasgrantedavoluntarydismissal < withoutprejudiceastoEastTennesseeBaptistHospitalonly.OnAugust5,1999,plaintiff,seeking (x torejoinEastTennesseeBaptistHospitalasadefendant,filedamotiontoamendthecomplaintand d aproposedamendedcomplaint.Themotiontoamendwasgrantedandanorderwasenteredon P August10,1999,rejoiningEastTennesseeBaptistHospitalasadefendant.EastTennesseeBaptist < Hospitallaterfiledamotiontodismiss,claimingthattheperiodoflimitationforrefilingunder ( Tenn.CodeAnn.281105hadexpiredonAugust7,1999.Thedefendantsmotiontodismisswas  granted,andEastTennesseeBaptistHospitalwasdismissedfromthecase.Plaintiffappealedtothe  CourtofAppeals,whichaffirmedthetrialcourtsdecision.TheissuebeforethisCourtiswhether  thefilingofamotiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplaint commencedanewaction  withinthemeaningofRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandSection281105of t  TennesseeCodeAnnotated(the savingstatute).Weholdthatfilingamotiontoamendanda `!  proposedamendedcomplaintconstitutecommencementofanewaction.Therefore,theplaintiffhas L"! fulfilledtherequirementsofthesavingstatute,andthejudgmentsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtof 8#" Appealsarereversedandthiscauseisremandedtothecircuitcourt. $$t# , Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentsofthetrialcourtandCourtof %L!% AppealsReversedandRemandedtothetrialcourt.  &8"&   FrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson, ($( AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,WilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. )$) DonnaKeeneHoltandDavidE.Waite,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ClaraFrazier. +&+   p,', R.FranklinNorton,GaryG.Spangler,andJoeR.Feagins,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,   EastTennesseeBaptistHospital,Inc.   @@OO& OPINION  t  I.FactualandProceduralBackground  L      OnMay8,1998,theplaintiff,asAdministratoroftheEstateofJosieMaeBlalock $ t Pickens,filedhercomplaintinthismedicalmalpracticecaseinKnoxCountyCircuitCourt  ` againstEastTennesseeBaptistHospital,Inc.( Baptist),andMarkW.Jackson,M.D.On  L  August7,1998,theplaintifffiledforvoluntarydismissalofherclaimsagainstEastTennessee  8  BaptistHospital,andonthesameday,theordergrantingthevoluntarydismissalwasentered. $  OnAugust5,1999,theplaintifffiledamotiontoamendtheoriginalcomplaintandaproposed   amendedcomplaintwiththeKnoxCountyCircuitCourt.OnAugust10,1999,anorderwas   enteredgrantingtheplaintiffsmotiontoamend,therebyrejoiningBaptistasadefendant.On   September20,1999,BaptistfiledamotiontodismisspursuanttoTennesseeRulesofCivil   Procedure12.02(6)and12.03,arguingthattheplaintiffsactionwasuntimelybecausetheorder p grantingthemotiontoamendwasfiledtwodaysafterexpirationoftheoneyearstatutoryperiod \ thatallowscommencementofanewactionafteravoluntarydismissal,TennesseeCode H Annotated281105(the savingstatute).Baptistarguedthatfilingthemotiontoamenddid 4 notconstitutecommencementofanewactionasrequiredbythesavingstatute.  p   OnJanuary11,2000,Baptistsmotiontodismisswasgranted.Onappeal,theCourtof H AppealsdeterminedthatTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure15.03,notthesavingstatute, 4 applied.Therefore,becausetherewasno misnomeror mistakerequiringrejoiningofthe   defendantunderRule15.03,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentdismissing   theplaintiffscauseofactionagainstthedefendant,findingituntimely.    II.Analysis       TheissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherthefilingofaproposedamendedcomplaintand X  motiontoamendwiththeclerkofthetrialcourtcommencedanactionwithinthemeaningofRule D! 3oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandSection281105oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated. 0"  Rule3providesthat [a]llcivilactionsarecommencedbyfilingacomplaintwiththeclerkofthe #l! court.Incontrast,theTennesseesavingstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.281105,provides,inpart,the $X" following: $D # (a)Iftheactioniscommencedwithinthetimelimitedbyaruleorstatuteof &"% limitation,butthejudgmentordecreeisrenderedagainsttheplaintiffuponany '#& groundnotconcludingtheplaintiffsrightofaction,orwherethejudgmentordecree (#' isrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiff,andisarrested,orreversedonappeal,the )$( plaintiff,ortheplaintiffsrepresentativesandprivies,asthecasemaybe,may,from |*%) timetotime,commenceanewactionwithinone(1)yearafterthereversalorarrest. h+&* (emphasisadded).PlaintiffsarepermittedtoobtainvoluntarydismissalsunderRule41.01ofthe  TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,whichprovidesinrelevantpartthat:  (1)...theplaintiffshallhavetherighttotakeavoluntarynonsuittodismissan t actionwithoutprejudicebyfilingawrittennoticeofdismissalatanytimebeforethe ` trialofacauseandservingacopyofthenoticeuponallparties,andifapartyhasnot L  alreadybeenservedwithasummonsandcomplaint,theplaintiffshallalsoservea 8  copyofthecomplaintonthatparty;orbyanoralnoticeofdismissalmadeinopen $ t courtduringthetrialofacause;orinjurytrialsatanytimebeforethejuryretiresto  ` consideritsverdictandpriortotherulingofthecourtsustainingamotionfora  L  directedverdict.Ifacounterclaimhasbeenpleadedbyadefendantpriortothe  8  serviceuponthedefendantofplaintiffsmotiontodismiss,thedefendantmayelect $  toproceedonsuchcounterclaiminthecapacityofaplaintiff.   (2)Notwithstandingtheprovisionsoftheprecedingparagraph,anoticeofdismissal   operatesasanadjudicationuponthemeritswhenfiledbyaplaintiffwhohastwice   dismissedinanycourtanactionbasedonorincludingthesameclaim. p {ReadingRule41.01andTenn.CodeAnn.281105together,theireffectistoallowaplaintiff, H havingalreadycommencedtheoriginallawsuitwithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,totake 4 amaximumoftwovoluntarydismissalswithoutprejudiceandstillretainthecapacitytorejoinan  p originaldefendantsolongastheplaintiff commence[s]anewactionwithinoneyearofthe  \ grantingofthefirstnonsuit. H   Asstatedabove,Rule3simplyrequiresthatacomplaintbefiledwiththeclerkofcourtto   commenceanaction.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection281101,however,defines actionto    include[]motions,garnishments,petitions,andotherlegalproceedingsinjudicialtribunalsforthe  redressofcivilrights.Thus,thequestionbeforethisCourtiswhethertoequatethefilingofa  motiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplaint,whichareclearly actionsunderSection28  1101,withthefilingofacomplaintunderRule3. l   AlthoughnotbindingonthisCourt, [f]ederal[CircuitCourtandDistrictCourt]caselaw D! interpretingrulessimilartoourownarepersuasiveauthorityforpurposesofconstruingthe 0"  Tennesseerule.Harrisv.Chern,33S.W.3d741,745n.2(Tenn.2000).InAdveyv.Celotex #l! Corporation,962F.2d1177(6thCir.1991),theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit $X" addressedtheissueofwhetherthefilingofamotiontoamendthecomplaint commencesanaction $D # withrespecttotheTennesseesavingstatute.InAdvey,agroupofplaintiffsfiledaproductliability %0!$ suitagainstasbestossuppliersonJuly29,1987.OnSeptember15,1987,plaintiffsfiledamotion &"% toamendthecomplaint,addingSparksasaplaintiff.OnSeptember23,1987,thedistrictcourt '#& deniedthemotiontoamendanddismissedtheentiresuitforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.A (#' newlawsuitwasfiledonSeptember21,1988,byseveralplaintiffs,includingSparks.The )$( defendantsmovedforsummaryjudgment,andthedistrictcourtruledthatSparkshadnotbrought |*%) hisclaimwithinTennesseesoneyearproductsliabilitystatuteoflimitations.Onappeal,Sparks h+&* arguedhissuitwascommencedwhentheSeptember15,1987,motiontoamendthecomplaintwas  filed.SparksfurthercontendedthatthesecondcomplaintfiledSeptember21,1988,wastimely  underthesavingstatutebecauseitwasfiledwithinoneyearofthedistrictcourtsdismissalforlack  ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Thus,theissuebeforetheSixthCircuitwaswhetherthefilingofthe t motiontoamend commencedanactionforpurposesofthesavingstatute.TheSixthCircuit ` recognizedthat,althoughthemotiontoamend,technically,wasnotacomplaintunderRule3,the L  broaddefinitionof actionprovidedinTenn.CodeAnn.281101includesmotionstoamend. 8  TheAdveycourtheld, [i]nlightoftheplaintermsofTenn.CodeAnn.281101andourdutyto $ t liberallyconstruepleadingrules,wefindthatSparkssmotiontoamendwasanactionforthe  ` resuscitativepurposeofthesavingstatute.962F.2dat1182.  L    Wehavemaintainedinnumerouscasesthat [t]heroleofthisCourtinconstruingstatutes $  istoascertainandgiveeffecttolegislativeintent.Legislativeintentistobeascertainedwhenever   possiblefromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,withoutforcedorsubtle   constructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage.ScheringPloughv.StateBd.   ofEqualization,999S.W.2d773,775(Tenn.1999).Statutesrelatingtothesamesubjectorsharing   acommonpurposemustbeconstruedtogether("inparimateria")"inordertoadvancetheircommon p purposeorintent."Carverv.CitizenUtils.Co.,954S.W.2d34,35(Tenn.1997).Ultimately,we \ seekthemost"reasonableconstructionwhichavoidsstatutoryconflictandprovidesforharmonious H operationofthelaws."Id.;seealsoLensCrafters,Inc.v.Sundquist,33S.W.3d772,777(Tenn. 4 2000);Croninv.Howe,906S.W.2d910,912(Tenn.1995).  p   Rule3requiresacomplainttocommenceanaction.However,wereadTennesseeCode H AnnotatedSections281101and281105tomeanthatthefilingofamotiontoamendalongwith 4 aproposedamendedcomplaintconstitutescommencementofanewactionwithinthepurviewof   thesavingstatute.Indeed,thedefendantscontentionthatfilingamotiontoamendandaproposed   amendedcomplaintdoesnotcommencea newactioniscontrarytothisCourtsearlyviewsonthe  savingstatute:  Counselstressestheword newintheexpression commenceanewactionwithin l ayear,butthestatutemustbeconstruedasawhole,and,whilenecessarilynewin X  thesensethatitisabeginning,isfreshlystarted,itiswellsettledthatitmustbe D! confinedinitspartiesandpurpose.... 0"  R;D;Moranv.Weinberger,260S.W.966,968(Tenn.1924),revdonothergrounds,Warev.Meharry $X" College,898S.W.2d181(Tenn.1985).Therefore,weholdthatplaintiffsfilingofthemotionto $D # amendandtheproposedamendedcomplaintsufficetosatisfythe resuscitativepurposeofthe %0!$ savingstatute. &"%   Thedefendantalsoassertsthattheplaintiffscommencementofanewactionwasuntimely (#' inthiscasebecause,althoughthemotiontoamendandproposedamendedcomplaintwerefiledprior )$(  totherunningofthesavingstatutesoneyearlimitationperiod,theordergrantingthemotionto |*%) amendwasfiledafterthesavingperiodhadexpired.AstheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe  NorthernDistrictofIndianastatedinEatonCorp.v.ApplianceValvesCo.,   oncetheplaintiffhasfileditsproposedamendedcomplaintaccompaniedbyamotion t forleavetoamendwithinthestatutoryperiod,thestatuteoflimitationsistolledeven ` thoughthecourtordergrantingleavetoamendandthetechnicalfilingofthe L  amendedcomplaintoccuraftertherunningofthestatuteoflimitations.Thisisthe 8  onlyjustandproperresultsinceonceleavetoamendhasbeenrequestedanda $ t proposedcomplaintisonfile,theplaintiffhastakenthosestepswithinhispowerto  ` tollthestatuteandmustawaittheappropriatecourtorder.  L  AA634F.Supp.974,98283(N.D.Ind.1984).Otherjurisdictionsaddressingthisparticularissuehave $  reachedsimilarresults,althoughsomespeakof tollingthestatuteoflimitationswhileothers   simplystatethatthemotiontoamendstandsintheplaceoftheamendedcomplaint.SeeMayesv.   AT&TInformationSystems,867F.2d1172(8thCir.1989)(filingofamotiontoamendanda   proposedamendedcomplaintpriortotherunningofthestatuteoflimitations,althoughnotentered   untilafterexpirationofthestatute,commencesanactioninaccordancewithFed.R.Civ.P.3);Lee p v.Crenshaw,562F.2d380(6thCir.1977);Rademakerv.E.D.FlynnExportCo.,Inc.,,17F.2d15 \ (5thCir.1927);Bradleyv.ArmstrongRubberCo.,46F.Supp.2d583(S.D.Miss.1999);Pearson H v.NiagraMachine&ToolWorks,701F.Supp.195(N.D.Okla.1988);Moorev.Grossman,824 4 P.2d7(Colo.Ct.App.1991)(filingofamotiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplainttolls  p thestatuteoflimitationssolongasthemotiontoamend,proposedamendedcomplaintandsummons  \ areservedpriortorunningofthelimitationsperiod);Totura&Co.,Inc.v.Williams,754So.2d671 H (Fla.2000)(filingofamotiontoamendstandsintheplaceofanamendedcomplaint);Perezv. 4 ParamountCommunications,Inc.,709N.E.2d83(N.Y.1999)(filingofamotiontoamendalong   withtheproposedamendedcomplaintandsummonstolledthestatuteoflimitations).Weagreewith   thegeneralruleexpressedinthesejurisdictionstoholdthatXXXX,whenthemotiontoamendthe  complaintandaproposedamendedcomplaintarefiledpriortotherunningofthestatuteof  limitations,themotiontoamendstandsinplaceoftheactualamendedcomplaintwhilethemotion  isunderreviewbythecourt.#XXXXсK#XXXXԀThefactthatanordergrantingthemotiontoamendisenteredafter l expirationofthestatuteoflimitationsdoesnotmaketheamendedcomplaintuntimely.#XXXXL# X    PlaintiffcontendsthattheCourtofAppealsfailedtoconsidertheapplicationofthesaving 0"  statutefollowingitsanalysisoftheapplicationofRule15.03.Weagree.ThisCourthasaddressed #l! thenatureofthestatutorypredecessortothecurrentsavingstatute,and,quotingfromaNewYork $X" caseregardingasimilarstatute,hasheldthat $D #  X[t]hestatuteisdesignedtoinsuretothediligentsuitortherighttoahearingincourt &"% tillhereachesajudgmentonthemerits.Itsbroadandliberalpurposeisnottobe '#& fritteredawaybyanynarrowconstruction.Theimportantconsiderationisthatby (#' invokingjudicialaid,alitigantgivestimelynoticetohisadversaryofapresent )$( purposetomaintainhisrightsbeforethecourts. |*%) O XO h+&* Burnsv.PeoplesTelephone&TelegraphCo.,33S.W.2d76,78(Tenn.1930)(quotingGainesv.  NewYork,109N.E.594,596(N.Y.1915)).Indeed,asstatedinAdvey, theavailabilityofthe  savingstatuteisafunctionofnoticetothedefendantanddiligencebytheplaintiff,similartothe  protectionsprovidedbyRule15.03,yetoperatingindependently.962F.2dat1182(citingLeev. t Crenshaw,562F.2dat382).Therefore,wefindthatRule15.03appliesseparatelyfromthe ` Tennesseesavingstatute,andthat,inthiscase,thesavingstatuteisapplicable,whileRule15.03is L  not.Insum,weholdthataplaintiff,havingtimelycommencedanaction,maytakeavoluntary 8  dismissalwithoutprejudice(subjecttotherestrictionsofRule41.01andTenn.CodeAnn.281 $ t 105)withrespecttooneoralldefendantsintheaction,andmaycommenceanewactionagainstthe  ` samedefendantordefendantsbyfilingamotiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplaintwithin  L  oneyearoftheordergrantingthevoluntarydismissal.Becausetheplaintiffinthiscasefiledher  8  motiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplaintpriortotheexpirationoftheoneyear $  limitationperiodprovidedbythesavingstatute,weholdthatthetrialcourterredingrantingthe   defendantsmotiontodismiss.     @@* CONCLUSION        Weholdthatfilingamotiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplaintcommencesanew \ actionascontemplatedbyTennesseeCodeAnnotated281105.Theplaintiffinthiscasefileda H motiontoamendandaproposedamendedcomplainttwodaysbeforetheexpirationoftheoneyear 4 limitationperiodprovidedinthesavingstatute.Therefore,theactionwastimelycommencedand  p thetrialcourterredingrantingthedefendantsmotiontodismiss.Thejudgmentsofthetrialcourt  \ andtheCourtofAppealsareherebyreversed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurther H proceedings.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotherespondent,EastTennesseeBaptistHospital,Inc. 4 #I}XX#   `     h     _____________________________ 0    `     h     XXI}FRANKF.DROWOTA,III,CHIEFJUSTICE#I}XX]#