Rule 15 Cases_Amended And Supplemental Pleadings

Front 1

Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp.

15(a)(2) Other Amendments.

In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's 1) written consent or 2) the court's leave. The court 3) should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Back 1

15(b)(1) If there is no prejudice to an opposing party a motion to amend an answer should be granted. Prejudice is usually shown by delay, bad faith by the moving party, or a dilatory motive by the moving party. Leave to amend should be denied only if it would cause actual prejudice to the other party. In Forman, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of bad faith or a dilatory motive, leave to amend is within the discretion of the court.

15(b)(2) allows for the amendment of pleadings to conform to the evidence. We bolded those rules in the case. When the court talks about prejudice it merely reflects on whether the party was prejudiced on the merits. Actually the party that would have been prejudiced was D if the trial court had not allowed it to claim that the slide was not manufactured by it. If not granted, D would have had to argue that a slide it did not manufacture was not manufactured negligently. Most state jurisdictions allow complaints to allege Doe defendants and to later amend the Does to real parties once the true parties are discovered.

Front 2

Moore v. Baker:

15(c)(1) Relation Back of Amendments.

(A) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:

(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

Back 2

Moore v. Baker: 15(c)(1)(A) The statute of limitations bars amending a complaint unless the amended complaint relates back to the date of the original complaint. 15(c)(1)(B) An amendment to a pleading will relate back if there is notice in the original complaint as determined by the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence.

Under Rule 15(c) the critical issue is whether the original complaint gave notice to the defendant of the claim now being asserted. Whenever the claim asserted arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, 15(c) allows for relation back and amendment. The key is whether D got notice from the original complaint of the claim that is now being asserted. Under these facts even when given liberal construction, there is nothing in P's complaint which makes reference to any acts of alleged negligence by D during or after surgery.

Front 3

Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation:

15(c)(1) Relation Back of Amendments

(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

Back 3

Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation: An amendment that changes the legal theory of a case is appropriate under the relation back doctrine if the factual situation upon which the action depends remains the same.

(1) Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely granted in the absence of undue prejudice, undue delay by the moving party, or bad faith. Even so an amendment to add a time barred claim will not be effective unless it related back.
(2) Rule 15 (a) (2) states “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
(3) Did the amendment assert a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out such that it relates back to original complaint before the statute of limitations ran out? Yes

Front 4

KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A.:

Issue: Whether the changing of the D’s name relates back to the original pleading.

15(c)(1) Relation Back of Amendments

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

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and

(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

Back 4

In the Krupski case the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that relating back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party's knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading. With Justice Sonia Sotamayor writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the text of Rule 15 asks what the prospective defendant "knew or should have known", not what the plaintiff "knew or should have known" as determined by the Eleventh Circuit. Here, the Court further reasoned that Cost Crociere should have known that Ms. Krupski's failure to name it as a defendant was due to a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. Thus, Ms. Krupski should be allowed to add Costa Crociere in her complaint.