In Hurt v. Michael's Food Center, Inc, 220 Mich App 169; 559 NW2d 660 (1996), two men held for allegedly shoplifting a jar of peanut butter sued a grocery store for false imprisonment and other claims. The original plaintiff, Hurt, was released without being charged. The amended plaintiff, Hicks, was charged but the charges were later dropped. The complaint was amended to add Hicks as a party-plaintiff after the statute of limitations had run on the false imprisonment claim. Despite identical false imprisonment claims arising out of the same circumstances, the Hurt Court found, albeit reluctantly, that the amended plaintiff's claim was time barred and could not relate back to the filing of the original complaint: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1996-4, we are constrained to follow Employers Mutual and affirm the circuit court's ruling barring plaintiff Hicks' false imprisonment claim as untimely because the relation-back rule does not extend to the addition of a new party. However, were it not for the administrative order, we would follow Hayes-Albion Corp v. Whiting Corp, 184 Mich App 410; 459 NW2d 47 (1990), and hold that the relation-back rule extends to the addition of a new party. Id. at 179.