AMENDING PLEADINGS
RULE 15: AMENDING PLEADINGS
(a) Before trial
o (1) as matter of course
(a) 21 days after serving
o (2) other occasions: with party’s consent or courts leave
o (3) time to respond: within remaining time to respond or 14 days
after service (pick longer)
(b) during and after trail
o (1) Based on objection at trial: Permit amend when aid in present
merits of case AND objecting party fails to satisfy court that
evidence would prejudice the party
o (2) Issues tried by consent. When issue not raised in pleadings,
treated as if raised in pleadings. Can amend to conform to
evidence, not needed.
(c) relation back to amendments
o (1) when amendment relates back to date or original pleading
(a) statute of limitation allows
(b) conduct arose from same transaction set in original
pleading OR
(c) change party or name
(i) party brought receive notice; will not be
prejudiced
(ii) knew or should have knew action would be
brought against it but for mistake concerning party’s
proper identity
o (2) Notice to united states. When use added as defendant by
amendment (i) and (ii) satisfied when process delivered to United
States Attorney
(d) supplemental pleading: court permit supplemental pleading setting
even though original pleading is defective in stating a claim or
defense.
Two types: as a matter of course; with leave
Amend without leave
o Not later than 21 days after serving
o 21 days after 12 motion to dismiss or more definite statement
Responsive pleading required
o Answer to complaint
o Answer to counter claim
Amending before trial with leave of court
o Factors considered: reason; viability of amended claim/defense;
reason for not including new allegation
BEECK v. AQUASLIDE
8th circuit
1977
Benson district judge
P: beeck (appellant)
D: Aquaslide (appellee)
Facts
o Beeck injured using water slide
o Three insurance companies determined that Aquaslide
manufactured the slide
o Aquaslide initially admitted that they made it
o President of aquaslide saw slide and determined it was not made
by them
Procedural history
o Sue Aquaslide
o Initially admit that made the slide
o Aquaslide moved for leave to amend its answer to deny
manufacture of slide
o Trial court granted motion for separate trial to determine whether
slide was manufactured
Issue
o Whether district court abused discretion by allowing the
amended answer?
Holding: NO.
Rule: grant amend unless: bad faith, undue delay, dilatory motive,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to opposing party
Reasoning
o Issue of bad faith
No bad faith on D, for relied on three different companies
to make decision
o Issue of prejudice
No sufficient prejudice for plaintiffs
Would be prejudicial to defendant to deny amendment
o Separate trial
Save time and expense
Not prejudicial to defendant
Disposition
o District court judgment affirmed
KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE
US supreme court
Justice Sotomayor
2010
Facts
o Krupski hurt on a cruise
Procedural history
o P filed personal injury action against Costa cruise lines
o Costa cruise answered: not proper defendant
o Costa cruise filed summary judgement
o Court dismissed without prejudice
o P moved for leave to add Costa Crociere which court granted
o Costa Crociere moved to dismiss for statute of limiations
o Court circuit court concluded that Krupski knew of the proper
defendant and made no mistake
Issue: Whether the amend complaint satisfied the relation back
requirements of Rule 15(c)(1)(C)?
o Whether defendant knew or should have known that the action
would have been brought against him?
Holding: Court erred in denying relation back.
o Defendant should have known action would be brought against
him
Rule:
o not whether Plaintiff knew of proper defendant BUT whether
defendant knew or should have known that it would have been
named defendant but for an error
o deliberate but mistaken choice not foreclose a finding that Rule
15 (c)(1)(C) has been satisfied
Reason
o No evidence for Krupski had unduly delay
o Foman v. Davis
Speed which plaintiff amends has no bearing on whether
the amended complaint relates back
o Costa Crociere should have known that it was not named as a
defendant because of a misunderstanding on costa identity.
(names are similar)
Costa Crociere was that difference in names confusing to
ship passengers (Suppa v. costa Crociere)
Disposition
o Reverse judgment of appeals court; remand for further
proceedings