Ex parte Marvin Gray, [Ms. 1180999, Apr. 24, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). The Court (Stewart, J.; and Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) denies Marvin Gray’s petition for writ of mandamus contending that claims in an amended complaint adding him as a defendant were barred by the statute of limitations.
Rather than naming Gray, plaintiff had mistakenly named as a defendant the police officer who investigated the motor vehicle accident. Ms. *2. The Court concludes that pursuant to Rule 15(c)(3) Ala. R. Civ. P., the amendment adding Gray related back to the filing of the original complaint, explaining
Thomas filed the amended complaint naming Gray as a defendant 89 days after she filed the original complaint, which was within the 120-day period prescribed by Rule 15(c)(3). As explained above, Gray does not dispute that he was served with the amended complaint or that he otherwise received notice of the commencement of the action before the expiration of the 120-day period. In addition, Gray does not assert that he will suffer any prejudice from defending the action on the merits. Because Gray has failed to establish that he did not have proper notice of the complaint within 120 days of the commencement of the action and because Gray has not alleged the existence of any prejudice resulting from maintaining a defense on the merits, Gray has not demonstrated that Thomas’s amendment should not relate back to the filing of the original complaint under Rule 15(c)(3).
Ms. **13-14.