AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

1. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS Tonight we discuss the topic of amendment to pleadings, that is, the right to change the initial position taken in the initial complaint or answer. As I have already said, the Federal Rules approach, which is followed in a significant number of states, turns the common law order of things on its head. The common law forced lawyers to develop the facts before they pleaded. Because the pleading rules required them to plead one version of the case and to stick to it. There was no such thing as amending a complaint or answer under common law pleading. The FRCP comtemplates the filing of a basic complaint or answer and then the development of the facts through investigation and discovery afterwards. Since pleading is now the beginning of trial preparation, rather than the end, its inevitable that the parties will learn a great deal about their case after they file the complaint and the answer. In many respects the initial pleadings might become outdated as the facts are developed during discovery. For example, the parties understanding of their legal theories might change during the course of the litigation. Tonight we discuss the topic of amendment to pleadings, that is, the right to change the initial position taken in the initial complaint or answer. As I have already said, the Federal Rules approach, which is followed in a significant number of states, turns the common law order of things on its head. The common law forced lawyers to develop the facts before they pleaded. Because the pleading rules required them to plead one version of the case and to stick to it. There was no such thing as amending a complaint or answer under common law pleading. The FRCP comtemplates the filing of a basic complaint or answer and then the development of the facts through investigation and discovery afterwards. Since pleading is now the beginning of trial preparation, rather than the end, its inevitable that the parties will learn a great deal about their case after they file the complaint and the answer. In many respects the initial pleadings might become outdated as the facts are developed during discovery. For example, the parties understanding of their legal theories might change during the course of the litigation.

2. What circumstances lead parties to seek to amend? Patrick submitted a proposed written contract to David under which Patrick agreed to give investment advice to David in exchange for 20% of any increase in the value of David�s investments. Over the course of a year, Patrick gave advice to David on a monthly basis. David followed Patrick�s advice and doubled his net worth. David refused to pay Patrick. Patrick filed a complaint against David for breach of contract but later concluded that the contract was unenforceable because David never signed it. Patrick wishes to amend the complaint to allege an action in quantum meruit (reasonable value of services rendered). David pleads breach of contract. But later after discovery, he determines that the contract is unenforceable because David did not sign it. He wishes to amend the complaint to allege an action in quantum meruit. David pleads breach of contract. But later after discovery, he determines that the contract is unenforceable because David did not sign it. He wishes to amend the complaint to allege an action in quantum meruit.

3. What circumstances lead parties to seek to amend? Richard sues Monte Vista Corporation for personal injuries. He pleads that Monte Vista employees caused his injuries so that MV is liable under respondeat superior. However, later, Richard learns from interrogatories that the workers were actually independent contractors. Now he wants to amend his complaint to plead negligent supervision of the contractor by MV. Richard sues Monte Vista Corporation for personal injuries. He pleads that Monte Vista employees caused his injuries so that MV is liable under respondeat superior. However, later, Richard learns from interrogatories that the workers were actually independent contractors. Now he wants to amend his complaint to plead negligent supervision of the contractor by MV. Similarly, the defendant may wish to amend the answer to assert new legal theories. MV in Richard�s negligence action answers by denying negligence. Later, it learns that Richard had discovered his injury 5 years earlier. Thus, MV now wishes to amend its answer to assert as an affirmative defense that Richard�s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Richard sues Monte Vista Corporation for personal injuries. He pleads that Monte Vista employees caused his injuries so that MV is liable under respondeat superior. However, later, Richard learns from interrogatories that the workers were actually independent contractors. Now he wants to amend his complaint to plead negligent supervision of the contractor by MV. Similarly, the defendant may wish to amend the answer to assert new legal theories. MV in Richard�s negligence action answers by denying negligence. Later, it learns that Richard had discovered his injury 5 years earlier. Thus, MV now wishes to amend its answer to assert as an affirmative defense that Richard�s claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

4. What circumstances lead parties to seek to amend? Regina sues Poe Foundation for the negligence of Samuel in hitting her with a truck. In deposing Samuel, Regina learns that it was actually Mack who was driving the truck. She moves to amend to allege that Mack hit her instead of Samuel. The process of preparing the case for trial may also change the parties understanding of the facts so that they may wish to amend to change the factual positions taken in the pleadings. Regina sues Poe Foundation for the negligence of Samuel in hitting him with a truck. In deposing Samuel, Regina learns that it was actually Mack who was driving the truck. She moves to amend to allege that Mack hit him instead of Samuel. In both of these types of situation: changes in the party�s legal positions and changes in their understanding of the facts, FRCP allow the parties great flexibility to amend their pleadings to conform to their evolving understanding of the facts. The process of preparing the case for trial may also change the parties understanding of the facts so that they may wish to amend to change the factual positions taken in the pleadings. Regina sues Poe Foundation for the negligence of Samuel in hitting him with a truck. In deposing Samuel, Regina learns that it was actually Mack who was driving the truck. She moves to amend to allege that Mack hit him instead of Samuel. In both of these types of situation: changes in the party�s legal positions and changes in their understanding of the facts, FRCP allow the parties great flexibility to amend their pleadings to conform to their evolving understanding of the facts.

5. Amendment as a matter of course The federal rules are extremely liberal Rule 15(a) permits a party to �amend the party�s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. When no responsive pleading, at any time within 20 days after it is served. The federal rules are unbelievably forgiving in this regard. Rule 15. Technical stuff and easy stuff to raise on an exam. First rule: plaintiff has a right to amend once �as a matter of course� (that is without getting permission from the court) before defendant serves an answer. Absolute. Can add a million dollar new claim. That fine. But look how precise this is. Once and only once. Before answer. 15(a). The first sentence. The federal rules are unbelievably forgiving in this regard. Rule 15. Technical stuff and easy stuff to raise on an exam. First rule: plaintiff has a right to amend once �as a matter of course� (that is without getting permission from the court) before defendant serves an answer. Absolute. Can add a million dollar new claim. That fine. But look how precise this is. Once and only once. Before answer. 15(a). The first sentence.

6. The defendant has the corresponding right to amend the answer, once within 20 days of serving the answer. Absolute. Good. Might want to put in an affirmative defense left out. Reason for the 20 day is there is no responsive pleading due to an answer. With these amendments as a matter of right, the party is not required to file a motion. The party just files the amended pleading and it automatically supersedes the initial pleading. The defendant has the corresponding right to amend the answer, once within 20 days of serving the answer. Absolute. Good. Might want to put in an affirmative defense left out. Reason for the 20 day is there is no responsive pleading due to an answer. With these amendments as a matter of right, the party is not required to file a motion. The party just files the amended pleading and it automatically supersedes the initial pleading.



9. What if the defendant does not answer? Suppose defendant brings a motion. Do we have the right to amend the complaint? What if the defendant does not answer? Suppose defendant brings a motion. Do we have the right to amend the complaint?

10. What if the defendant does not answer? Suppose defendant brings a motion. Does the Plaintiff have the right to amend the complaint? Yes. Because a motion is not an answer. It is not a pleading. Can use the motion as a basis for fixing the problem raised by the motion. What if the defendant does not answer? Suppose defendant brings a motion. Does the Plaintiff have the right to amend the complaint? Yes. Because a motion is not an answer. It is not a pleading. Can use the motion as a basis for fixing the problem raised by the motion.

11. The defendant has the corresponding right to amend the answer, once within 20 days of serving the answer. Absolute. Good. Might want to put in an affirmative defense left out. Reason for the 20 day is there is no responsive pleading due to an answer. With these amendments as a matter of right, the party is not required to file a motion. The party just files the amended pleading and it automatically supersedes the initial pleading. The defendant has the corresponding right to amend the answer, once within 20 days of serving the answer. Absolute. Good. Might want to put in an affirmative defense left out. Reason for the 20 day is there is no responsive pleading due to an answer. With these amendments as a matter of right, the party is not required to file a motion. The party just files the amended pleading and it automatically supersedes the initial pleading.

12. Amendment as a matter of course The federal rules are extremely liberal Rule 15(a) permits a party to �amend the party�s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. When no responsive pleading, at any time within 20 days after it is served. The federal rules are unbelievably forgiving in this regard. Rule 15. Technical stuff and easy stuff to raise on an exam. First rule: plaintiff has a right to amend once �as a matter of course� (that is without getting permission from the court) before defendant serves an answer. Absolute. Can add a million dollar new claim. That fine. But look how precise this is. Once and only once. Before answer. 15(a). The first sentence. The federal rules are unbelievably forgiving in this regard. Rule 15. Technical stuff and easy stuff to raise on an exam. First rule: plaintiff has a right to amend once �as a matter of course� (that is without getting permission from the court) before defendant serves an answer. Absolute. Can add a million dollar new claim. That fine. But look how precise this is. Once and only once. Before answer. 15(a). The first sentence.

13. The defendant has the corresponding right to amend the answer, once within 20 days of serving the answer. Absolute. Good. Might want to put in an affirmative defense left out. Reason for the 20 day is there is no responsive pleading due to an answer. With these amendments as a matter of right, the party is not required to file a motion. The party just files the amended pleading and it automatically supersedes the initial pleading. The defendant has the corresponding right to amend the answer, once within 20 days of serving the answer. Absolute. Good. Might want to put in an affirmative defense left out. Reason for the 20 day is there is no responsive pleading due to an answer. With these amendments as a matter of right, the party is not required to file a motion. The party just files the amended pleading and it automatically supersedes the initial pleading.

14. Amending Pleadings To amend afterward, a party must obtain leave of court or the stipulation of the adverse party. The court is directed to permit amendments freely �when justice so requires.� How? Motion under 7(b), with proposed amendment attached. After that time limit has gone by, the party wishing to amend must be granted leave to amend. But Rule 15 makes it clear that amendment is to be liberally allowed unless there is substantial prejudice from doing so. Rule 15(a) states that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. It is not hard to see why the FRCP strongly favor allowing the parties to change allegations in the pleadings. Since the whole premise in the rules is that the complaint and the answer simply start the ball rolling. They give general notice of the events in suit and of the plaintiff�s claims. The real work of developing the case comes after pleading--not before. It would make little sense to take this approach unless the system also allowed the parties positions to be modified to fit the facts as they uncover them later. If the parties were stuck with their original positions we�d be back to the common law era, in which the parties were constrained by their initial pleadings and could not change positions. So under the rules amendments are frequent and easy and often the parties will consent to amendments by the other side, if only because they know that the court, applying the liberal standard in Rule 15(a) will allow it anyway. Why fight the inevitable. While Rule 15(a) favor amendments to make the pleadings reflect the actual positions of the parties, there are limits. The strongest argument against allowing an amendment is that it will prejudice the opposing party in some way. After that time limit has gone by, the party wishing to amend must be granted leave to amend. But Rule 15 makes it clear that amendment is to be liberally allowed unless there is substantial prejudice from doing so. Rule 15(a) states that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. It is not hard to see why the FRCP strongly favor allowing the parties to change allegations in the pleadings. Since the whole premise in the rules is that the complaint and the answer simply start the ball rolling. They give general notice of the events in suit and of the plaintiff�s claims. The real work of developing the case comes after pleading--not before. It would make little sense to take this approach unless the system also allowed the parties positions to be modified to fit the facts as they uncover them later. If the parties were stuck with their original positions we�d be back to the common law era, in which the parties were constrained by their initial pleadings and could not change positions. So under the rules amendments are frequent and easy and often the parties will consent to amendments by the other side, if only because they know that the court, applying the liberal standard in Rule 15(a) will allow it anyway. Why fight the inevitable. While Rule 15(a) favor amendments to make the pleadings reflect the actual positions of the parties, there are limits. The strongest argument against allowing an amendment is that it will prejudice the opposing party in some way.

17. Steve is injured using a lawnmower and sues Row Manufacturing claim Row knew about the defect and recklessly disregarded the hazard to consumers. After discovery was completed and the case was about to go to trial, Steve moves to amend to plead a claim for negligence. Steve is injured using a lawnmower and sues Row Manufacturing claim Row knew about the defect and recklessly disregarded the hazard to consumers. After discovery was completed and the case was about to go to trial, Steve moves to amend to plead a claim for negligence. This amendment, if allowed could introduce a host of new issues into the case, such as comparative negligence of the plaintiff, limitations defenses, the defendant�s due care and others. If the plaintiff is allowed to spring this new this new claim on the defendant at the Eleventh hour, the defendant will have to defend a claim at trial that the defendant has not been put on notice of or had any reason to do discovery about. Remember that a major function of pleadings, even under our liberal federal rules approach is to give notice. To define what is in dispute and what isn�t. By not pleading negligence initially, Steve has lulled the defendant into not preparing a case on that issue. So prejudice to the party that must rebut the new allegation is a major reason for refusing to allow an amendment. But others are often cited as well. For example, if the new theory was available to the party from the beginning, courts will look of the amendment with a jaundiced eye if the plaintiff tries to add the claim far down the line. Steve is injured using a lawnmower and sues Row Manufacturing claim Row knew about the defect and recklessly disregarded the hazard to consumers. After discovery was completed and the case was about to go to trial, Steve moves to amend to plead a claim for negligence. This amendment, if allowed could introduce a host of new issues into the case, such as comparative negligence of the plaintiff, limitations defenses, the defendant�s due care and others. If the plaintiff is allowed to spring this new this new claim on the defendant at the Eleventh hour, the defendant will have to defend a claim at trial that the defendant has not been put on notice of or had any reason to do discovery about. Remember that a major function of pleadings, even under our liberal federal rules approach is to give notice. To define what is in dispute and what isn�t. By not pleading negligence initially, Steve has lulled the defendant into not preparing a case on that issue. So prejudice to the party that must rebut the new allegation is a major reason for refusing to allow an amendment. But others are often cited as well. For example, if the new theory was available to the party from the beginning, courts will look of the amendment with a jaundiced eye if the plaintiff tries to add the claim far down the line.

18. Lois sued Hal for breach of contract. Later, just before the trial she seeks to amend her complaint to allege that Hal�s breach of the contract was also a violation of the State�s Consumer Protection Act. Lois sued Hal for breach of contract. Later, just before the trial she seeks to amend to allege that defendant�s breach of the contract was also a violation of the State�s Consumer Protection Act. Here, there appears no reason why this second claim could not have been asserted at the beginning. If Lois knew that the contract was breached, she presumably had all the information she needed to assert the additional claim in the original complaint. Her addition of the Consumer Protection Act claim looks more like sloppy pleading rather than a change in her genuine understanding of the case. In such cases the court is caught between a rock and hard place. Because its clearly counsel�s fault, not the plaintiff�s that the claim is brought up so late. Denying the amendment will bar the plaintiff from asserting a perfectly viable theory. And courts don�t like to visit mistakes of counsel on their client�s heads. Yet, at the same time defendant is entitled to notice of the claims she must respond to. So there is a delicate balancing of the equities which must be done in these cases. Generally, courts tend to come down heavily in favor of hearing all of the claims that the plaintiff may have unless there is clear evidence of prejudice to the defendant. Lois sued Hal for breach of contract. Later, just before the trial she seeks to amend to allege that defendant�s breach of the contract was also a violation of the State�s Consumer Protection Act. Here, there appears no reason why this second claim could not have been asserted at the beginning. If Lois knew that the contract was breached, she presumably had all the information she needed to assert the additional claim in the original complaint. Her addition of the Consumer Protection Act claim looks more like sloppy pleading rather than a change in her genuine understanding of the case. In such cases the court is caught between a rock and hard place. Because its clearly counsel�s fault, not the plaintiff�s that the claim is brought up so late. Denying the amendment will bar the plaintiff from asserting a perfectly viable theory. And courts don�t like to visit mistakes of counsel on their client�s heads. Yet, at the same time defendant is entitled to notice of the claims she must respond to. So there is a delicate balancing of the equities which must be done in these cases. Generally, courts tend to come down heavily in favor of hearing all of the claims that the plaintiff may have unless there is clear evidence of prejudice to the defendant.

19. Plaintiff has been diligent, but discover new evidence immediately before trial which suggests an important new theory of the case. Grant the amendment but continue the trial. Suppose on the other hand that plaintiff hasn�t slept on her rights but she discovers new evidence just before trial which suggests an important new theory of the case. This happens. It happens often. Court in an awkward position. One solution is to grant the amendment, but to allow the opposing party a continuance to do further discovery. The downside of this of course is delay. Sometimes the opposite situation arises. The plaintiff does not plead a particular issue, but both parties assume that it is in contention. They conduct discovery on the point and they in fact try the issue at trial. Maybe the plaintiff sues for breach of an express warranty but does not allege a breach of contract claim. But everyone assumes that he claims that the contract was breached as well. Both parties prepare the case on this basis , introduce evidence at trial. Here the pleadings, filed in the dim past do not reflect what is actually happening in the litigation. The parties really have prepared and tried the breach of contract case. The spirit of the rules is that the parties should not be confined by the original pleadings if those pleadings do not reflect the parties subsequent understanding of the issues in the case. Here Rule 15(b) allows the court to proceed as thought the issue of breach of contract had been properly pleaded. No prejudice. The key to such treatment is that the court must be satisfied that all the parties understood all along that that breach issue was litigated. If the defendant can show that he or she did not know that that issue was in contention, then Rule 15(b) does not apply. Suppose on the other hand that plaintiff hasn�t slept on her rights but she discovers new evidence just before trial which suggests an important new theory of the case. This happens. It happens often. Court in an awkward position. One solution is to grant the amendment, but to allow the opposing party a continuance to do further discovery. The downside of this of course is delay. Sometimes the opposite situation arises. The plaintiff does not plead a particular issue, but both parties assume that it is in contention. They conduct discovery on the point and they in fact try the issue at trial. Maybe the plaintiff sues for breach of an express warranty but does not allege a breach of contract claim. But everyone assumes that he claims that the contract was breached as well. Both parties prepare the case on this basis , introduce evidence at trial. Here the pleadings, filed in the dim past do not reflect what is actually happening in the litigation. The parties really have prepared and tried the breach of contract case. The spirit of the rules is that the parties should not be confined by the original pleadings if those pleadings do not reflect the parties subsequent understanding of the issues in the case. Here Rule 15(b) allows the court to proceed as thought the issue of breach of contract had been properly pleaded. No prejudice. The key to such treatment is that the court must be satisfied that all the parties understood all along that that breach issue was litigated. If the defendant can show that he or she did not know that that issue was in contention, then Rule 15(b) does not apply.

20. The plaintiff does not plead a particular issue, but both parties assume that it is in contention. They conduct discovery on the point and they in fact try the issue at trial. The spirit of the rules is that the parties should not be confined by the original pleadings if those pleadings do not reflect the parties subsequent understanding of the issues in the case. Rule 15(b) allows the court to proceed as thought the issue had been properly pleaded.

21. Moore v. Moore 391 A.2d 762 (1978)

30. BEECK V. AQUASLIDE 562 F. 2d 537 (8th Cir. 1977)

35. Beeck (P) sued Aquaslide �N�Dive Corp (D), which P believed to be the manufacturer of a swimming pool slide on which P was severely injured. P claimed D was negligent, strictly liable, and in breach of an implied warranty. In its answer, D admitted that it was the manufacturer of the slide. This admission was given on the basis of independent investigations of the slide by insurance companies for D, the apartment complex in which the slide was located and P�s employer. Beeck (P) sued Aquaslide �N�Dive Corp (D), which P believed to be the manufacturer of a swimming pool slide on which P was severely injured. P claimed D was negligent, strictly liable, and in breach of an implied warranty. In its answer, D admitted that it was the manufacturer of the slide. This admission was given on the basis of independent investigations of the slide by insurance companies for D, the apartment complex in which the slide was located and P�s employer.

37. Beeck v. Aquaslide What governs the exercise of judicial discretion to permit amendments which are sought beyond the period where amendment may be made as a matter of course? Time Prejudice Bad Faith Approximately 6 months after the statute of limitations on P�s personal injury claim expired, D�s president, Meyer, visited the site of the accident in preparation for his deposition, which was being taken on the issue of whether the slide was defectively installed or assembled. At that time, Meyer determined that the slide was not manufactured by D. D moved for leave to amend its answer, to withdraw its admission, and to have a separate trial on the manufacture issue. The trial court granted both motions. The jury found that D was not the manufacturer of the slide, and the trial judge entered summary judgment. ISSUE: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the motion for leave to amend and the motion for a separate trial on the issue of who manufactured the slide?Approximately 6 months after the statute of limitations on P�s personal injury claim expired, D�s president, Meyer, visited the site of the accident in preparation for his deposition, which was being taken on the issue of whether the slide was defectively installed or assembled. At that time, Meyer determined that the slide was not manufactured by D. D moved for leave to amend its answer, to withdraw its admission, and to have a separate trial on the manufacture issue. The trial court granted both motions. The jury found that D was not the manufacturer of the slide, and the trial judge entered summary judgment. ISSUE: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the motion for leave to amend and the motion for a separate trial on the issue of who manufactured the slide?

38. Beeck v. Aquaslide There would have been substantial harm to one of the parties whichever way the matter was decided. The court had discretion to allow the amendment as as to avoid an artificial decision what would have ignored the crucial fact that the defendant did not manufacture the defective slide. HELD: No. As to the motion for leave to amend: (1) in the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment--the leave sought should, as the rues require, be �freely granted.� (2) Allowance or denial of leave to amend is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. (3) the record indicates no evidence of bad faith, prejudice, or undue delay. D�s admission was in reliance upon independent investigations by three different insurance companies. No prejudice to P resulted from the expiration of the statue of limitations, because P would not have prevailed on the merits of the manufacture issue.????? Furthermore, allowance of the amendment does not necessarily preclude P from proceeding against other parties. Finally, P had not at any time conceded that the slide in question had not been manufactured by the defendant. As to the motion for a separate trial on the manufacturer issue: Rule 42(b) gives a court authority to order separate trials in the interest of judicial economy or convenience or to avoid prejudice. A trial court�s severance of trial will not be disturbed on appeal except on abuse of discretion. Evidence of P�s severe injuries and the large amount of damages P seeks would clearly have taken up several days of trial time and the severity of P�s injuries may have been prejudicial to D�s claim of nonmanufacture.HELD: No. As to the motion for leave to amend: (1) in the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment--the leave sought should, as the rues require, be �freely granted.� (2) Allowance or denial of leave to amend is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. (3) the record indicates no evidence of bad faith, prejudice, or undue delay. D�s admission was in reliance upon independent investigations by three different insurance companies. No prejudice to P resulted from the expiration of the statue of limitations, because P would not have prevailed on the merits of the manufacture issue.????? Furthermore, allowance of the amendment does not necessarily preclude P from proceeding against other parties. Finally, P had not at any time conceded that the slide in question had not been manufactured by the defendant. As to the motion for a separate trial on the manufacturer issue: Rule 42(b) gives a court authority to order separate trials in the interest of judicial economy or convenience or to avoid prejudice. A trial court�s severance of trial will not be disturbed on appeal except on abuse of discretion. Evidence of P�s severe injuries and the large amount of damages P seeks would clearly have taken up several days of trial time and the severity of P�s injuries may have been prejudicial to D�s claim of nonmanufacture.

39. The Relation Back Doctrine

40. Relation Back of Amendments Sometimes a party will amend a pleading after the statute of limitations has expired. If a party adds a claim against an existing party, does it relate back to the original filing date? If a party adds a new party, does the amended pleading relate back to the original filing date? Rule 15(c) addresses the problem of when an amendment to a pleading will relate back to the date of filing an original pleading. Rule 15(c) addresses the problem of when an amendment to a pleading will relate back to the date of filing an original pleading.

41. What does it mean for an amendment to relate back? It means that an amendment is treated as thought it had been filed in its amended form on the day that the lawsuit was originally filed. Relation Back of Amendments What does it mean for an amendment to relate back? It means that an amendment is treated as thought it had been filed in its amended form on the day that the lawsuit was originally filed.What does it mean for an amendment to relate back? It means that an amendment is treated as thought it had been filed in its amended form on the day that the lawsuit was originally filed.

42. Relation Back of Amendments She brings the suit on January 1, 1996 claiming that the action by the police officer violated her federal civil rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The federal law provides that the statute of limitations for a civil rights claim is the same as the state statute of limitations for any personal injury. She brings the suit on January 1, 1996 claiming that the action by the police officer violated her federal civil rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The federal law provides that the statute of limitations for a civil rights claim is the same as the state statute of limitations for any personal injury.

43. Relation Back of Amendments She brings the suit on January 1, 1996 claiming that the action by the police officer violated her federal civil rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The federal law provides that the statute of limitations for a civil rights claim is the same as the state statute of limitations for any personal injury. She brings the suit on January 1, 1996 claiming that the action by the police officer violated her federal civil rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The federal law provides that the statute of limitations for a civil rights claim is the same as the state statute of limitations for any personal injury.

44. Relation Back of Amendments Six months later in June, she decides that she might be able to able to recover for the same incident on a state law battery theory. On June 1, she seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim for state law battery as well. However, the statute of limitations for bringing a battery claim had expired on April 1, 1996. If Carlie had not already sued Bobby, she certainly would not have been able to sue him for battery in June since the statute of limitations had expired in April. But Carlie did sue Bobby before the statute of limitations ran, though on a different theory. All she wants to do now is to add another theory of relief to the claim pending. Allowing this really should not prejudice Bobby�s ability to prepare a defense. He already knew before the limitations period had run that he had been sued by Carlie for this incident. So he already has begun the gather the evidence and to prepare for trial. Having to defend on the battery claim as well as the civil rights claim may require more preparation, but at least Bobby was put on notice of the lawsuit itself before the limitations period had expired. Six months later in June, she decides that she might be able to able to recover for the same incident on a state law battery theory. On June 1, she seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim for state law battery as well. However, the statute of limitations for bringing a battery claim had expired on April 1, 1996. If Carlie had not already sued Bobby, she certainly would not have been able to sue him for battery in June since the statute of limitations had expired in April. But Carlie did sue Bobby before the statute of limitations ran, though on a different theory. All she wants to do now is to add another theory of relief to the claim pending. Allowing this really should not prejudice Bobby�s ability to prepare a defense. He already knew before the limitations period had run that he had been sued by Carlie for this incident. So he already has begun the gather the evidence and to prepare for trial. Having to defend on the battery claim as well as the civil rights claim may require more preparation, but at least Bobby was put on notice of the lawsuit itself before the limitations period had expired.

45. FRCP 15(c) Put another way, the policy of the statute of limitations is satisfied as long as the defendant is informed within the limitations period that the plaintiff is suing for the particular incident. It doesn�t require that the defendant be informed of all the details of the theories or claims on which the case will be tried. Notice of the suit itself is all that is required. It is not unfair to Bobby if he has such notice to make him defend on a different legal theory which is raised later in the same suit by amendment. Federal Rule 15(c)(2) adopts this approach--that the purpose of the limitations statute is satisfied as long as Carlie brought suit against Bobby on some claim arising out of this incident before the limitations period expired. 15(c)(2) provides that the claim will relate back as long as it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading. So the scope of relations back is broad. Any amendment by Carlie, if allowed, will relate back as long as it seeks relief from the same arrest incident. She could add a statutory claim, a battery claim, a first amendment claim, she could add a demand for punitive damages for the arrest, what ever. And the added claim will be proper even though the amendment is sought after the limitations period has expired. Of course, she will need leave to amend. We know that from Rule 15(a). But as long as leave is granted by the judge, the limitations period will not bar the amendment. Because is will be deemed to relate back to the date of the original pleading. Put another way, the policy of the statute of limitations is satisfied as long as the defendant is informed within the limitations period that the plaintiff is suing for the particular incident. It doesn�t require that the defendant be informed of all the details of the theories or claims on which the case will be tried. Notice of the suit itself is all that is required. It is not unfair to Bobby if he has such notice to make him defend on a different legal theory which is raised later in the same suit by amendment. Federal Rule 15(c)(2) adopts this approach--that the purpose of the limitations statute is satisfied as long as Carlie brought suit against Bobby on some claim arising out of this incident before the limitations period expired. 15(c)(2) provides that the claim will relate back as long as it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading. So the scope of relations back is broad. Any amendment by Carlie, if allowed, will relate back as long as it seeks relief from the same arrest incident. She could add a statutory claim, a battery claim, a first amendment claim, she could add a demand for punitive damages for the arrest, what ever. And the added claim will be proper even though the amendment is sought after the limitations period has expired. Of course, she will need leave to amend. We know that from Rule 15(a). But as long as leave is granted by the judge, the limitations period will not bar the amendment. Because is will be deemed to relate back to the date of the original pleading.

46. Relation Back of Amendments Changing a Claim or Defense 15(c)(2) allows an amendment changing a claim or defense to relate back, when the claim or defense arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim or defense in the original pleading. The �same transaction or occurrence� rule governing relation back of amendments charnging claims and defenses reflects the underlying policy of the Federal Rules to provide maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather on the basis of procedural technacalities. This alos reflects the limited role of pleading: notice rather than fact revelation or issue formation, which are functions now handled by the discovery process. If arise out of same transaction no surprise. Assumption, once notified, a party should be prepared to meet however many claims or defenses that may arise from a single set of factsThe �same transaction or occurrence� rule governing relation back of amendments charnging claims and defenses reflects the underlying policy of the Federal Rules to provide maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather on the basis of procedural technacalities. This alos reflects the limited role of pleading: notice rather than fact revelation or issue formation, which are functions now handled by the discovery process. If arise out of same transaction no surprise. Assumption, once notified, a party should be prepared to meet however many claims or defenses that may arise from a single set of facts

47. Relation Back of Amendments Six months later in June, she decides that she might be able to able to recover for the same incident on a state law battery theory. On June 1, she seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim for state law battery as well. However, the statute of limitations for bringing a battery claim had expired on April 1, 1996. If Carlie had not already sued Bobby, she certainly would not have been able to sue him for battery in June since the statute of limitations had expired in April. But Carlie did sue Bobby before the statute of limitations ran, though on a different theory. All she wants to do now is to add another theory of relief to the claim pending. Allowing this really should not prejudice Bobby�s ability to prepare a defense. He already knew before the limitations period had run that he had been sued by Carlie for this incident. So he already has begun the gather the evidence and to prepare for trial. Having to defend on the battery claim as well as the civil rights claim may require more preparation, but at least Bobby was put on notice of the lawsuit itself before the limitations period had expired. Six months later in June, she decides that she might be able to able to recover for the same incident on a state law battery theory. On June 1, she seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim for state law battery as well. However, the statute of limitations for bringing a battery claim had expired on April 1, 1996. If Carlie had not already sued Bobby, she certainly would not have been able to sue him for battery in June since the statute of limitations had expired in April. But Carlie did sue Bobby before the statute of limitations ran, though on a different theory. All she wants to do now is to add another theory of relief to the claim pending. Allowing this really should not prejudice Bobby�s ability to prepare a defense. He already knew before the limitations period had run that he had been sued by Carlie for this incident. So he already has begun the gather the evidence and to prepare for trial. Having to defend on the battery claim as well as the civil rights claim may require more preparation, but at least Bobby was put on notice of the lawsuit itself before the limitations period had expired.

48. Relation Back of Amendments Changing a Claim or Defense 15(c)(1) allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading when the law providing the statute of limitations permits relation back. If state law provides the statute of limitations in a diversity case, a claim not arising from the same facts as the claim in the original pleading can relate back if state law so provides. Note that Rule 15(c)(1) provides that an amendment will also relate back if it would relate back under the relevant state law. This was put in Rule 15 to avoid a difficult Erie problem. I mentioned it when we discussed Erie. If state law would allow Green to be brought in, but 15(c)(3) would have prevented it, there would be a real serious issue as to whether the federal rule abridged a substantive right and was therefore invalid under the second paragraph of the REA. The rule makes simply wrote this conflict out of the rule by providing that an amendment will relate back in federal court any time that it would under applicable state law. Note that Rule 15(c)(1) provides that an amendment will also relate back if it would relate back under the relevant state law. This was put in Rule 15 to avoid a difficult Erie problem. I mentioned it when we discussed Erie. If state law would allow Green to be brought in, but 15(c)(3) would have prevented it, there would be a real serious issue as to whether the federal rule abridged a substantive right and was therefore invalid under the second paragraph of the REA. The rule makes simply wrote this conflict out of the rule by providing that an amendment will relate back in federal court any time that it would under applicable state law.

49. Relation Back of Amendments The situation is quite different, however, where Carlie attempts to add a new party to the lawsuit after the limitations period has expired. In January, 1996, Carlie sued Bobby, a police officer for using excessive force in arresting her. During discovery, however, she learns that Officer Green, another police office who hit her. In June, 1996, after the statute of limitations governing the claim has expired, she seeks to add Green to the lawsuit as a new defendant. In this situation, Green may not have known withing the limitations period that Carlie was seeking compensation for injuries for the arrest. The fact that Bobby knows does not necessarily mean that Green knows. If Carliehad waited until June, 1996 to bring her lawsuit, she could not have sued Green at all for her injuries, because it was after the statute of limitations had expired. She should she be any better off because she sued someone else, Bobby before the limitations period ran out? The situation is quite different, however, where Carlie attempts to add a new party to the lawsuit after the limitations period has expired. In January, 1996, Carlie sued Bobby, a police officer for using excessive force in arresting her. During discovery, however, she learns that Officer Green, another police office who hit her. In June, 1996, after the statute of limitations governing the claim has expired, she seeks to add Green to the lawsuit as a new defendant. In this situation, Green may not have known withing the limitations period that Carlie was seeking compensation for injuries for the arrest. The fact that Bobby knows does not necessarily mean that Green knows. If Carliehad waited until June, 1996 to bring her lawsuit, she could not have sued Green at all for her injuries, because it was after the statute of limitations had expired. She should she be any better off because she sued someone else, Bobby before the limitations period ran out?




53. Relation Back of Amendments Changing Parties

54. A specific provision governing amendments which added new parties was added to FRCP 15(c) in 1966. When an amendment changed the party against who a claim was asserted, it would relate back if: Relation Back of Amendments Changing Parties Rule 15(c)(3) recognizes the potential unfairness of allowing amendments which add a new party to relate back after the expiration of the statute of limitations. And to protect against this unfairness, Rule 15(c)(3) provides that an amendment to add a party will only relate back to the date of the original suit, that is in Carlie�s case, be treated as if it were filed in January, 1996 if three conditions are met: First, must arise out of the same transactions or occurrence as the original claim against the other defendant. In the hypothetical this clearly is the case. Carlie is suing Green for the same arrest incident as she is suing Bobby for initially. Second, the defendant being added to the case must have received notice of the suit, within the time by which process had to be served on the original party to the action. In other words, Green had to know about the lawsuit within the time Bobby had to know about it through service of process. Generally that within 120 days after filing of the complaint. Third, the new defendant must have been aware that but for a mistake in identifying the right person to sue, the suit would have been against him or her instead of against the original defendant. In our case Green would have had to realize before the limitations period had ran that Carlie was suing for injuries resulting from Green�s use of force. Not Bobby�s and that she had only sued Bobby due to a mistake in identity. The thrust of these three requirements is to ensure that the amendment rule does not undermine the statute of limitations. The purpose of limitations period is notice within a statutorily fixed period of time so that the defendant can properly prepare a defense. Rule 15(c)(3) recognizes the potential unfairness of allowing amendments which add a new party to relate back after the expiration of the statute of limitations. And to protect against this unfairness, Rule 15(c)(3) provides that an amendment to add a party will only relate back to the date of the original suit, that is in Carlie�s case, be treated as if it were filed in January, 1996 if three conditions are met: First, must arise out of the same transactions or occurrence as the original claim against the other defendant. In the hypothetical this clearly is the case. Carlie is suing Green for the same arrest incident as she is suing Bobby for initially. Second, the defendant being added to the case must have received notice of the suit, within the time by which process had to be served on the original party to the action. In other words, Green had to know about the lawsuit within the time Bobby had to know about it through service of process. Generally that within 120 days after filing of the complaint. Third, the new defendant must have been aware that but for a mistake in identifying the right person to sue, the suit would have been against him or her instead of against the original defendant. In our case Green would have had to realize before the limitations period had ran that Carlie was suing for injuries resulting from Green�s use of force. Not Bobby�s and that she had only sued Bobby due to a mistake in identity. The thrust of these three requirements is to ensure that the amendment rule does not undermine the statute of limitations. The purpose of limitations period is notice within a statutorily fixed period of time so that the defendant can properly prepare a defense.

55. It arose from the same transaction or occurrence and . . . . . . Relation Back of Amendments Changing Parties

56. The party to be brought in by amendment had received �such notice of the institution of the action that the party would not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits;� and . . . Relation Back of Amendments Changing Parties

57. This notice had be be received �within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by amendment;� and . . . . Relation Back of Amendments Changing Parties

58. It had to be shown that the party brought in �knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.� Relation Back of Amendments Changing Parties The additional requirements that must be met before amendments changing parties will relate back reflect the policies of statutes of limitations. Those policies are twofold: (1) a desire to protect the courts and parties from the danger of inaccurate detemination of claims based on stale evidence; and (2) the assurance of a period of repose that will benefit parties in ordering their affairs free from the fear that claims arising from long-past events may be asserted against them.The additional requirements that must be met before amendments changing parties will relate back reflect the policies of statutes of limitations. Those policies are twofold: (1) a desire to protect the courts and parties from the danger of inaccurate detemination of claims based on stale evidence; and (2) the assurance of a period of repose that will benefit parties in ordering their affairs free from the fear that claims arising from long-past events may be asserted against them.

59. Relation back Rule as of 1966

60. Schiavone v. Fortune 477 U.S. 21 (1986) In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court construed the �change of parties� provisions of Rule 15(c). In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court construed the �change of parties� provisions of Rule 15(c).

61. �as applied in Schiavone






67. Schiavone v. Fortune HELD: The one-year statute of limitations applicable to the action had run. Thus, the amendment did not relate back. Although Time had received notice of the action within the 120-day period under Rule 4, the party to be brought in had to receive notice of the action within the limitations period.

68. Schiavone v. Fortune Commentators strongly criticized the Schiavone decision. �If Time had been properly named in the complaint and had been served after the one-year period had run, the action would have been timely. Yet under such circumstances, Time would still not have received notice of the action within the limitations period. Furthermore, when Time did receive notice of the action, it understood perfectly that the plaintiff had made a mistake in naming the defendant and that it was the defendant who should have been sued.� Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand how the policies of the statute of limitations would have been undermined if the amended complaint had been allowed to relate back.Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand how the policies of the statute of limitations would have been undermined if the amended complaint had been allowed to relate back.


70. Relation back Rule as of 1966

71. The Schiavone Amendment to 15(c) (3) when the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted and (a) the same transaction or occurrence test of (c)(2) is satisfied, (b) the party to be brought in receives notice within the 120-day period for service of process (Rule 4), (c) the notice is sufficient to prevent the party from being prejudiced in maintaining a defense of the merits, and (d) the party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party. The structure of the 1991 amendments to Rule 15(c) had given rise to potential problems of interpretation. Rule 15(c)(1) provides that relations back will occur when allowed by the law providing the statute of limitations. Should 15(c)(1) be applied to amendments changing parties? The rule on its face is applicable to all amendments and such an application would render any other provision of 15(c) superflouous. Alternatively, should 15(c)(1) be deemend inapplicable to amendments changing parties because it does not specifically state that it is applicalbe to such amendments and 15(c)(3) does specifically deal with them? The advisory committee apparently intended Rule 15(c)(1) to apply to amendments changing parties: �whatever may be the controlling body of limitations law, if that law affords a more forgiving principle of relation back than the one provided in this rule, it should be available to save the claim. If Schiavone implies the contrary, this paragraph is intended to make a naterial change in the rule.� The notice in (c) need not be formal. Clearly, therefore, the notice provided does not have to be by service of process. Is it enough notice that the person is aware of the incident giving rise to the claim, even if the party is not aware that the plaintiff has mistakenly commenced an action against another defendant based on the incident. The better approach would be to ask directly whether the notice received by the parti is of the sort that would enable the party to maintain a defense on the merits. The key is that the party must be given sufficient notce of the circumstances. This notice must alert the party that a defense on the merits of the plaintiff�s claim will ultimately be necessary.The structure of the 1991 amendments to Rule 15(c) had given rise to potential problems of interpretation. Rule 15(c)(1) provides that relations back will occur when allowed by the law providing the statute of limitations. Should 15(c)(1) be applied to amendments changing parties? The rule on its face is applicable to all amendments and such an application would render any other provision of 15(c) superflouous. Alternatively, should 15(c)(1) be deemend inapplicable to amendments changing parties because it does not specifically state that it is applicalbe to such amendments and 15(c)(3) does specifically deal with them? The advisory committee apparently intended Rule 15(c)(1) to apply to amendments changing parties: �whatever may be the controlling body of limitations law, if that law affords a more forgiving principle of relation back than the one provided in this rule, it should be available to save the claim. If Schiavone implies the contrary, this paragraph is intended to make a naterial change in the rule.� The notice in (c) need not be formal. Clearly, therefore, the notice provided does not have to be by service of process. Is it enough notice that the person is aware of the incident giving rise to the claim, even if the party is not aware that the plaintiff has mistakenly commenced an action against another defendant based on the incident. The better approach would be to ask directly whether the notice received by the parti is of the sort that would enable the party to maintain a defense on the merits. The key is that the party must be given sufficient notce of the circumstances. This notice must alert the party that a defense on the merits of the plaintiff�s claim will ultimately be necessary.

72. �as amended after Schiavone

73. Worthington v. Wilson 790 F.Supp. 829 (C.D. Ill. 1992)

74. Worthington v. Wilson February 25, 1989 excessive force arrest February 25, 1991 complaint filed and the statute of limitations expired June 17, 1991 complaint amended to name individual defendant police officers June 25, 1991 120-day service period expired Motion to dismiss recommended by Magistrate Judge Reviewed de novo by District Judge On February 25, 1989 Richard Worthington was arrested by two of Peoira Hights� finest. Worthington told the two officers about his injured left hand. According to the amended complaint, the officers responded to the information by doing what all police officers do under the circumstances. When Worthington said take it easy he gestured slightly, causing his arm (the uninjured one of course) to contact the upper torso of one of the officers. Hoisted from the ground by the handcuffs, Worthinton suffered broken bones in his left hand. On February 25, 1991, Worthington filed a complaint in Illinois State court against the city and �three unknown police officers� for deprivation of consittutional rights under Section 1983. The City removed the action to federal court. [28 USC 1441; Supp p. 262] On June 17, Worthington filed an amended complaint which named as Defendants Dave Wilson, Jeff Wall. The amended complaint contained no claim against the City. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run and failed to state a claim for relief under 1983 [Rule 12(b)] [Heard by Magistrate Judge who recommended granting. On review the district judge held: The statute of limitations for a 1983 action is 2 years. On February 25, 1989 Richard Worthington was arrested by two of Peoira Hights� finest. Worthington told the two officers about his injured left hand. According to the amended complaint, the officers responded to the information by doing what all police officers do under the circumstances. When Worthington said take it easy he gestured slightly, causing his arm (the uninjured one of course) to contact the upper torso of one of the officers. Hoisted from the ground by the handcuffs, Worthinton suffered broken bones in his left hand. On February 25, 1991, Worthington filed a complaint in Illinois State court against the city and �three unknown police officers� for deprivation of consittutional rights under Section 1983. The City removed the action to federal court. [28 USC 1441; Supp p. 262] On June 17, Worthington filed an amended complaint which named as Defendants Dave Wilson, Jeff Wall. The amended complaint contained no claim against the City. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run and failed to state a claim for relief under 1983 [Rule 12(b)] [Heard by Magistrate Judge who recommended granting. On review the district judge held: The statute of limitations for a 1983 action is 2 years.

75. �as applied in Worthington





80. Worthington v. Wilson Under the amended version of 15(c) Worthington�s amended complaint would relate back to February 25, 1991 if the defendants were aware that they were the �unknown officers� and they concede that they knew of the pendency of the lawsuit within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint. Since the amended complaint was not filed until June 17, 1991, the only way the amended complaint can be found to be timely fied is if it relates back to the filing of the original complaint. After Schiavone, 15(c) was amended from requiring that a new party have actual notice of the action and that it was the proper party before the statute of limitations expired., to allowing an amendment to relate back to the filing of the original complaint if it arises out of the same conduct and the new party was aware of the action within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint. Thus under the amended version of 15(c) Worthington�s amended complaint, would relate back to February 25, 1991 if the defendants were ware before June 25, 1991, that they were the �unknown officers�. The defendants conceded that they were aware of the action. However, defendants argue that there was no �mistake� concerning the identity of the proper party but due to a lack of knowledge over the proper defendant. The court finds that �mistake� does not include lack of knowledge. Therefore, under 15(c) no relation back is allowable. For a similar case see Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1998), the court held that plaintiff could not use 15(c) relation back to amend the complaint to add sheriff�s deputies as �John doe� defendants. Since the amended complaint was not filed until June 17, 1991, the only way the amended complaint can be found to be timely fied is if it relates back to the filing of the original complaint. After Schiavone, 15(c) was amended from requiring that a new party have actual notice of the action and that it was the proper party before the statute of limitations expired., to allowing an amendment to relate back to the filing of the original complaint if it arises out of the same conduct and the new party was aware of the action within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint. Thus under the amended version of 15(c) Worthington�s amended complaint, would relate back to February 25, 1991 if the defendants were ware before June 25, 1991, that they were the �unknown officers�. The defendants conceded that they were aware of the action. However, defendants argue that there was no �mistake� concerning the identity of the proper party but due to a lack of knowledge over the proper defendant. The court finds that �mistake� does not include lack of knowledge. Therefore, under 15(c) no relation back is allowable. For a similar case see Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1998), the court held that plaintiff could not use 15(c) relation back to amend the complaint to add sheriff�s deputies as �John doe� defendants.

81. Worthington v. Wilson Defendants argue that there was no �mistake.� The court finds that lack of knowledge is not included within the meaning of �mistake.� Is this decision correctly decided? Worthington argues that relations back is not governed by 15(c) but instead by Illinois CCP 2-413: If in any action there are persons interested therein whoes names are unknown, it shall be lawful to make them parties to the action by the. . .[fictitious name]. . .; but an affidavit shall be filed by the party desiring to make those person parties stating that their names are unknown. Process may them issue and publication may be had against those person by the [fictitious name] and judgments entered in respect to them shall be of the same effect as though they had been designed by their proper name. In support, Worthington cites Cabrales v. Los Angeles which held that relation-back of an amendment which added a new party was an issue governed by state law. Perhaps even more important is the Ninth Circuit�s decision: �The length of the limitations period, and closely related questions of tolling and application, are to be governed by state law. Also, as the district court noted, statutes of limitation define the substantive rights of parties. the California pleading practice allows new defendants to be named after the original complaint is filed without violating the statute of limitations is such a a substantive state policy that it is applicable in the federal courts.� The decision rests on the principle that, because federal courts borrow state statute of limitations for 1983 claims, they must also borrow state rules of procedure which increase or decrease those statutes of limitations, such as tolling or relation-back. But since 15(c) addresses the subject, federal law trumps state law. Worthington argues that relations back is not governed by 15(c) but instead by Illinois CCP 2-413: If in any action there are persons interested therein whoes names are unknown, it shall be lawful to make them parties to the action by the. . .[fictitious name]. . .; but an affidavit shall be filed by the party desiring to make those person parties stating that their names are unknown. Process may them issue and publication may be had against those person by the [fictitious name] and judgments entered in respect to them shall be of the same effect as though they had been designed by their proper name. In support, Worthington cites Cabrales v. Los Angeles which held that relation-back of an amendment which added a new party was an issue governed by state law. Perhaps even more important is the Ninth Circuit�s decision: �The length of the limitations period, and closely related questions of tolling and application, are to be governed by state law. Also, as the district court noted, statutes of limitation define the substantive rights of parties. the California pleading practice allows new defendants to be named after the original complaint is filed without violating the statute of limitations is such a a substantive state policy that it is applicable in the federal courts.� The decision rests on the principle that, because federal courts borrow state statute of limitations for 1983 claims, they must also borrow state rules of procedure which increase or decrease those statutes of limitations, such as tolling or relation-back. But since 15(c) addresses the subject, federal law trumps state law.

82. Supplemental Pleadings Upon a proper motion, 15(d) permits �supplemental pleadings.� Directed toward transactions or events that have happened after the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

Presentation Transcript

first amendment

First Amendment

Amendment Review

Pretrial Matters: Pleadings & Motions

Pleadings: the Complaint

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

Amendment of Regulations

PLEADINGS

PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY

Thirteenth Amendment

19th Amendment .

Amendment Example

Eighth Amendment

Fourth Amendment

Amendment Article V – Formal Amendment

Pleadings Rule 11 Exercise

Let’s Sue! PLEADINGS

First Amendment

Pleadings – Sufficiency (Archibald)

amendment 17

Amendment Flashcards

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS