You are on page 1of 7

Page 449 + 450: Amendments to Pleadings

FRCP Rule 15 Amendment & Supplemental Pleadings

A) Amendments Before Trial

1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course within

a. 21 Days after serving it

b. If the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,


i. 21 days after service of a responsive pleading
or
ii. 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), 12(e), or 12(f),
whichever is earlier

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.

3) Time to Respond. Unless court orders otherwise, any required response to an


amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the
original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading,
whichever is later.

B) Amendments During and After Trial

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

1) When an amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the


date of the original pleading when:

A) The Law that Provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation
back

B) The Amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the


conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted to be set out in
the original pleading; or [Rule 15(c)(1)(B)]

C) The amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a
claim is asserted, if:

-Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied; and if

-Within the Rule 4(m) period for serving summons and complaint, the party to
be brought by amendment:

15(c)(1)(c)(i) Received such notice of the action that it will not be


prejudiced if defending on the merits; and

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

Sotomayor, Roberts,Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito majority


Scalia concurs in part, concurring in the judgement

Forum: Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida

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.

Disposition: Court of Appeals judgement reversed.

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

Mistake Balance between justice and notice/prejudice/surprise to amended defendant


History of Mistake
Mistake 3 possible ways added in 1966 fixes only claims to include change parties
issues with suing governments; new proceeding v. statute of limitations policy of notice;
Courts in general agree misnomer/misidentification/mispelling = mistake
When P sues the intended party and lacks knowledge of the real party, no mistake for
some conservative jurisdictions
When P knows of the existence of potential party, but does not sue bc P does not know
whether he is liable, or makes strategic choice; same argument intended party sued
When P sues John Doe Defendants Placeholder no mistake bc he admits he doesnt
know who to sue
o Wood v. Worachek John Doe is not a mistake concerning misnomer
o Sassi v. Brier John Doe tolling would kill purpose of Statute of Limitations
o Wood gets extended to naming actual false defendants Ps ignornance or
misunderstanding is not a mistake
o But John doe can be fine if 1) same facts, 2) notice, 3) knew or should have know

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

Feb. 21, 2007: Statute of Limitations Expires

-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.

July 11, 2008: Krupski files amended complaint

Aug 21, 2008: Krupski serves Costa Crociere; DC issues order dismissing Costa Cruise pursuant
to parties joint stipulation; Krupski determind Cruise not responsible

Passenger Ticket = Sole contract between passenger and carrier


Requirements for obtaining damages
Ticket identifies Carrier as Costa Crociere; Italian Corp.
Injured party must submit written notice of claim to carrier or duly authorized agent
w/in 185 days after the date of the injury
Lawsuit must be filed w/in one year after date of injury & served upon carrier w/in 120
days after filing
Voyages departing from or returning to U.S. port & $>75k, forum = United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Broward County, Florida.
Costa Cruise Lines identified as the sales and marketing agent for the Carrier and
issuer of this passage ticket contract
o *Front Ticket said Costa Cruise Lines address in Florida, and that Costa
Cruises was the first cruise company in the world to obtain certain certification of
quality
Part II

A Supreme Court on Knowledge v. Mistake


Court of appeals chose wrong starting point by focusing on Krupskis knowledge
o Its not whether K knew or should have known identity of CC as proper D, but
whether CC knew or should have known it would have been named D but for an
error
o What does prospective D know during rule 4m period? Not what P should have
Ps knowledge relevant only if it bears on Ds understanding of whether P made a
mistake regarding the proper partys identity
o Mistake: Error, misconception, misunderstanding; erroneous belief
That P knows of a partys existence does not preclude her from
making a mistake with respect to that partys identity.
P may know prospective D exists, while erroneously believing him to
have the status of party B. While P may know what A does, could
misunderstand roles that party A and B played in the conduct transaction
or occurrence giving rise to her claim.
o Knowledge of Identity/Exists != Status or role Mistake.
If P sues B instead of A under these circs, she has made mistake
concerning proper partys identity notwithstanding her knowledge
of existence of both parties.
So only relevant question: Did A know but for mistake action
would have been brought against him?
o A deliberate but mistaken choice does not preclude rule 15
Were not judging the reasonableness of mistakes here its not at issue
Purpose of Relation Back: To balance the interests of the defendant protected by the
statute of limitations with preference expressed in FRCP Rule 15 for resolving disputes
on merits
o Prospective D who believes that SOL passes without suit has strong interest
in repose but no such interest if he knows he escaped only bc P
misunderstood crucial fact abou this identity
Ps knowledge and deliberate choice does not support partys interest in
repose

-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

You might also like