Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Relation Back
A. 15(c)(1)—Relation Back
1. Applies when the SOL has passed and the party wants to amend
2. The Movant is going to raise relation back as response to the non-movant’s FUTILE
argument
3. EXAMPLE:
a) The movant files a motion for leave to amend once the SOL has run out
b) The non movant, in opposition, argues that the court should deny leave to amend
c) The movant then responds by saying, NO, the amendment is not futile because it
RELATES BACK
B. Relation Back = Treat the new claim as if it had been in the original claim
1. Doctrine of relation back is a principle that something done today will betreated as if it were
2. It means that the amended complaint with the new claim will be treated as though it had
3. Example: original pleading is filed, SOL run outs, and at some point you want to amend.
4. What relation back does is that it allows one to treat the new claim or the claim against the
new party in the amended pleading as if it had been included in the original timely pleading
c) The original complaint MUST have been TIMELY (filed before the SOL ran out)
(1) If the claim would have been included in the original pleading, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN TIMELY
(b) If the original complaint had been filed after the SOL and we relate it back to the
1. Must have arisen from same T/O as that of the original claim
2. Defendants know to expect these claims because they’re already being sued on other claims
3. Claim preclusion under 18a also tells the defendant that the plaintiff has to bring all their
claims that arise from the same T/O or else risk losing them, so they’re on notice.
E. 15c1C, for the changing or naming of a party aka substituting or adding a defendant or changing
(2) Basically states that had the D been brought in via the original complaint, he would
have been served and received notice in the 4(m) time—60 days
(3) Within the 60 day period, the new D should have received notice of the action
(4) Had the D been named in the original pleading, he would have had notice within the
period
(5) This is the period he would have known about the action he had been named in the
original complaint
(6) This does not need to be served within the SOL, only FILED. The question is
(7) This element is linked to the next element: the 4(m) period is linked to the notice.
(8) To comply with the SOL, you only have to FILE the pleading within the SOL.
(d) The P now has 60 days after filing the complaint to serve it
(e) Therefore, the service /notice will be given after the SOL.
(9) 15(c)(1)(C)(i)
(a) This rule us saying that WITHIN the 60 day period provided in 4(m), the new
complaint, then you would have received notice of the action within 60 days
under 4(m).
(c) This is why the new D has to have received notice within the 60 day time frame.
c) Party to be added must receive notice of action, and knew or should have known, such
(1) 15(c)(1)(C)(i)
(a) You know about the lawsuit, you know could be a target of the lawsuit and you
know that you should be or would have been a target of the lawsuit, but for some
reason.
(b) Disadvantage is a different disadvantage than if the claim would have been filed
(c) Party thought he had the right to rest easy but he DOES NOT
(e) You’re giving the to-be-added D the same time frame as the original D and if you
DO NOT, then they will be prejudiced and this element WILL NOT be satisfied
(f ) But if you FILED within 60 days, then the party does not get such notice of the
action, so they know the claim might be coming and that they should not rest
i) Formal:
(1) Being served under 5(m)—60 days after the complaint is filed
(3) Receiving the motion for leave to amend with the proposed amendment
on notice if they see the original complaint, and within the 4(m) period
(60 days)
(6) EXAMPLE: the complaint made clear that Krupski meant to sue the
the ship and also indicated that Costa Cruises performed those roles,
Costa Crociere should have known within the 4(m) that it was not
mistake
ii) INFORMAL:
(2) Informal notice is okay as long as it is enough to tell the new D that he
could have been a party of the original complaint if there had not been a
complaint
(3) EXAMPLES:
d) Knew or should have known that the action would have been brought
(1) 15(c)(1)(C)(ii)
(a) Knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it
iii) That he was the intended D and that the suit would have been brought
(2) Krupski
knowledge, or inattention
(b) When you mean to sue 1 person but mistakenly sue another
(e) EXAMPLE: A P may know generally what party A does while misunderstanding
the roles that party A and B played in the event giving rise to her claim. If P sues
parties.
(f ) EXAMPLE: Mistake in Krupski: After being aware that two parties were present,
P chose one D and it was the wrong D. it was a mistake because it was not the
party that Krupski wanted to sue. Krupski wanted to sue whoever was
(h) EXAMPLE: Smith sues John Doe instead of two specific police officers.
However, this case is different. Smith, unlike Krupski, did not make a mistake
about the identity of the parties he intended to sue, he simply did not know who
they were and did not find out within the SOL.
(i) HYPO: P knows A exists, knows A is out in the world, BUT believes A has the
(j) HYPO: Woman gets pushed down the stairs and sees A and B. She doesn’t know
who pushed her and decided to sue B later to find out it was A. This is a mistake
concerning the proper party’s identity. The important thing is SHE KNEW A
existed.
(4) Krupski:
(a) The rule asks what the D knew or should have known during the 4(m) period
(b) The only question under 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) is whether party A knew or should
have known that, absent some mistake, the action would have been brought
against him
(c) The court disagrees with the respondent’s position that any time the P is aware of
the existence of 2 parties and chooses to sue the wrong one, the proper D could
misunderstanding about his status or role in the events giving rise to the claim at
issue, and she may mistakenly choose to sue a different D based on that
impression.
1. So the defendant can rest easy, we want the defendant to move on with his life, the SOL thus
2. For accuracy reasons; we get better results when the case is fresher.
3. The SOL puts an obligation on the plaintiff to exercise their rights, to not sleep on their
rights.
1. SOL should not be a windfall to the D but we also don’t want to the P infringing on their
3. How does notice serve the purposes of the SOL? How does giving the D notice serve the
4. The key to the SOL and relation back is the concept of notice
a) If someone is on Notice, it stops them from resting easy and tells them that they should
A. Krupski: Costa Cociere tried to argue that relation back was improper because Krupski waited too
long to actually move for leave to amend. Krupski found out about Costa Cociere- months before
1. How does the court say that this affects the relation back analysis?
2. The court said that the rule mandates relation back once the rule’s requirements are satisfied;
it does not leave the decision of whether to grant relation back to the district court’s discretion
3. They do not have the discretion as to whether or not it relates back; if the elements are
required, it is mandatory
4. Krupski continued: the elements of 15(c)(1)(C) are mandatory. Delay does not matter for
purposes of relation back. That if it satisfies the elements of 15(c)(1)(C), then it relates back
and therefore the claim against the new party is not futile. But does that mean that leave to
a) No
a) Undue delay
b) Bad faith
c) Dilatory motive
e) Undue prejudice
B. The court can say, “yes, your claim relates back, but because there was undue delay or bad faith or
C. Even if elements of 15(c)(1)(c) are satisfied, Court still may deny leave to amend because justice
D. Relation back helps to overcome futility of amendment because the statute of limitations ran
under Foman. 15(c)(1)(c) only gets you around the statute of limitations barring amendment