Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course within
2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, party may amend pleading only with opposing
partys written consent or the courts leave. Court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.
1) Based on an Objection at Trial. If at trial party objects that evidence not within
issues raised in the pleadings, court may permit pleadings to be amended. Court
should freely permit amendment when doing so will aid in presenting merits and the
objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the evidence would prejudice that
partys action/defense on the merits. Court may grant a continuance to enable the
objecting party to meet the evidence.
2) For Issues Tried by Consent. When issue not raised by pleadings tried by parties
express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if raised in the
pleadings. Party may move (at any time, even after judgement) to amend pleadings to
conform them to the evidence and to raise an unpleaded issue. But failure to amend
does not affect the result of the trial of that issue.
C) Relation Back of Amendments
A) The Law that Provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation
back
C) The amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a
claim is asserted, if:
-Within the Rule 4(m) period for serving summons and complaint, the party to
be brought by amendment:
15(c)(1)(c)(ii) Knew or should have known that the action would have
been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the
proper partys identity
2) Notice to the United States. When U.S. or U.S. officer/agency added as defendant by
amendment, notice requirements of Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(i&ii) are satisfied if, during
stated period, process delivered or mailed to U.S. attorney or its designee, to Attorney
General of the U.S., or to the officer or agency
D) Supplemental Pleadings. On motion & reasonable notice, court may, on just terms,
permit party to serve supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence,
or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may
permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a
claim or defense. The Court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental
pleading within a specified time.
Krupski v. Costa Crociere (2010)
Supreme Court; 9-0
The Counsel for Costa Cruise & Costa Crociere were the better lawyers here, since theyre
taking advantage of the loosely defined relation back doctrine and how it defines to mistake
Rule 15(c) governs when amended pleading relates back to the date of a timely filed original
pleading and is thus itself timely even though it was filed outside an applicable statute of
limitations.
Supreme Court Holding: Relation Back under 15c1c depends on what the party to be added
knew or should have known, not on the amending partys knowledge or its timeliness in
seeking to amend the pleading.
SC resolves tension by showing lower courts how to strike the appropriate balance between Ds
right to repose and hearing Ps claim on the merits
Procedural Posture
District Court held:
o Amended complaint did not relate back and was untimely
o Three reqs: 1) new D arose out of conduct, transaction, or occurrence, 2) w/in 4m,
service & notified new d for no prejudice, 3) w/in 4m, new d should have known
but mistake concerning proper identity.
First 2 no problem same notice and facts; but 3rd: Krupski had not
made a mistake concerning identity of proper party
Relied on 11th circuit precedent: a mistake should not be construed to
encompass a deliberate decision not to sue a party whose identity the
P knew before SOL run (454)
This knowledge + Untimeliness indicates no mistake
11th cirq Court of Appeals held:
1) that Rule 15c not satisfied bc P knew or should have known of the proper D
before filing her original complaint. P intended to sue Costa Cruise
a. Lack of Knowledge of correct defendant is not a mistake for rule 15
2) Court of Appeals also held that relation back was not appropriate bc P had
unduly delayed in seeking to amend 133 days
-Relevant info was on the ticket, ticket clearly identified crociere as carrier, P should have
known, P chose to sue costa cruise, 133 days
Part 1
Facts
Complaint:
o Costa Cruise owned, operated, managed, supervised, and controlled the ship
o Costa Cruise extended an invitation to passengers to enter the ship
o Costa Cruise owed a duty of care to P it breached by failing to take steps that
would have prevented her accident
o Venue was proper under FS clause
o Krupski complied w/ passenger tickets requirements
Krupski Acting in Good Faith?
o Travel documents identified Costa Cruise and gave Florida Address
o Costa Cruises Website listed Costa Cruise in Florida as the U.S. office for the
Italian company Costa Corciere
o Web Site of Florida Dept of State listed Costa Cruise as the only Costa company
registed to do business in that state.
o Krupski also observed that Costa Cruises claims admin responded to her claims
notification w/out indicating that Costa Cruise was not a responsible party
With this response, Krupski moves to amend her complaint to add CC new
Feb. 21, 2007: Wanda Krupski trips over cable and factures femur on Costa Magica Cruise ship
July 2, 2007: Krupskis counsel notifies Costa Cruise Lines of the claims 127 days after injury
July 9, 2007: Claims administrator for Costa Cruise requests additional info from Krupski in
order to facilitate future attempts to achieve pre-litigation settlement
-no settlement reached-
Feb. 1, 2008: Three weeks before 1yr limitations period expires, Krupski files negligence action
against Costa Cruise, invoking diversity jurisdiction
Feb. 4, 2008: Krupski serves Costa Cruise within the 120 day Rule 4(m) period, satisfies all of
the tickets requirements in order to recover
-Costa Cruise brought Costa Crocieres existence to Krupskis attention 3 times after SOL-
Feb. 25, 2008: Abiding with the 12a1a1 rule, provides answer within 21 days, asserting it was
not the proper defendant, merely north American sales and marketing agent for
Costa Crociere, who was the actual carrier and vessel operator
March 20, 2008: Costa Cruise lists Costa Crociere as an interested party in its corporate
disclosure statement
May 6, 2008: Costa Cruise moves for Summary Judgement, again stating CC proper defendant
June 13, 2008: Krupski responds to Costa Cruises motion for summary judgement, arguing for
limited discovery to determine whether Costa Cruise should be dismissed
July 2, 2008: After oral argument, DC denies Costa Cruises motion for summary judgement
w/out prejudice and granted Krupski leave to amend; ordered Krupski effect
proper service on Costa Crociere by Sept. 16, 2008.
Aug 21, 2008: Krupski serves Costa Crociere; DC issues order dismissing Costa Cruise pursuant
to parties joint stipulation; Krupski determind Cruise not responsible
-1966- Rule 15c was amplified to provide a general solution to Social Security litigation problem
-Bc it was conceivable social security litigants should have known identity advisory committee
meant their filings to qualify as a mistake
D cites Nelson Corp v. Adams Adams sought to amend pleading to add nelson, he was
amended in, judgement gets entered in against him by default no due process & couldnt
respond, SC reverses; case did not arise under Mistake Clause: Adams made no mistake; knew of
nelsons role and existence, chose to assert its claim only against the company.
-Distinguish Adams didnt know he was subject to suit once Nelson found out here its
different. Adam goes after nelson to get fee award, not bc it mistaked identity. Fully informed
decision page 457
B Timeliness
Court of appeals Krupski had unduly delayed in seeking to file amended complaint but no
support for Ps dilatory conduct can justify denial of relation back. Amending partys diligence
is not a criteria for relation back; no equitable decision.
Court has discretion to consider undue delay/dilatory motive for 15a and interest
of justice is the standard
Contrast btw rule 15a & 15c - Speed at which P moves to amend has no bearing on
whether amended complaint relates back 458
o Only timing constraint in 15c is 4m
To the extent ps post filing conduct informs the prospective defendants
understanding of whether p initially made a mistake concerning proper partys
identity, court may consider the conduct.
o Citing Leonard v. Parry Post-filing can shed light on Ps state of mind earlier
sheds light on mistake v. choice. Otherwise, immaterial.
C Applying
DC held Costa Crociere had constructive notice w/in 4m period
Krupskis complaint was clear to mean she sued the company that owned, operated,
managed, supervised controlled the ship she was injured indicates she though cruise
performed this role, Crocier should have known w/in 4m period, that it was not named as
a D in that complaint only bc Krupskis misunderstanding about which costa entity in
charge clearly a mistake concerning proper partys identity
That Krupski may have known the contents of the ticket does not foreclose possibility
that she nonetheless misunderstood crucial facts regarding two company identities.
D articulates no strategy that could show Krupski had by pursuing cruise.
Timeliness is only good to determine Ps state of mind and how D interpreted, not relate
back
Crociere = cruise; related corp entities, same counsel
This interrelationship and similarity heighten expectation that crociere should suspect
mistake has been made.
The front of ticket advertises cruise achieve certification of quality w/out clarifying
which costa cruise it refers to
Costa cruise v. crociere has been confusing in the past Motion to dismiss amended
complaint denied before.
Footnote 5: 15c does not require P to move to amend her complaint within Rule 4m period
Rule 15c1ci simply requires prospective D has received suff notice of the action w/in rule 4m
that he will not be prejudieced in defending case on merits; advisory committee notes in 1966
notice need not be formal
Footnote 6: It is not clear why Krupski should have been found dilatory for not accepting at face
value the unproven allegations in Costa Cruises answer. Krupski quickly amended later after Dc
Scalia: Concur in part and in judgement: Dont rely on Notes of Advisory committee;
useful to the extent as any scholarly commentary, but their intentions are irrelevant to
meaning of rule even if we agree with their intentions, it is the text of the rule that control