Johnson & Bell Shareholder, Brad R. Schneiderman, recently obtained dismissal with prejudice for his client in a personal injury matter. The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2018 and subsequently filed suit in Cook County against the other driver in 2019. Over one year later, plaintiff amended her complaint and named one of the largest telecommunications companies in the U.S. as another defendant, alleging that a false trigger alarm went off at the defendant store that purportedly led to the underlying automobile accident. Then, more than three years after the accident, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint adding Schneiderman’s client as a defendant based on the contention that it was the actual owner/operator of the store where the purported false trigger went off.
Schneiderman filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. In response, plaintiff argued that the discovery rule and relation back doctrine applied. Yet, the Court agreed with Mr. Schneiderman’s arguments as to why the discovery rule and relation back doctrine did not apply. As a result, Schneiderman's client was dismissed with prejudice at the pleadings stage before needing to incur the costs associated with discovery.
