Beeck v. Aquaslide n Dive Corp P285
P was severely injured on a waterslide. ISSUES: whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting D to amend its answer changing an admittance of manufacture to a denial even though the statute of limitations had run on the time period when amendments could be made? and 2, whether a separate trial on the issue of "whether defendant designed, manufactured or sold the slide in question" was an abuse of discretion.
HELD: No abuse of discretion. Because D did not act in bad faith. The amendment would merely allow the D to contest a disputed fact at trial.
Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21 (1986) p288
Diversity suit in which plaintiffs alleged they had been libelled by a story in Fortune Magazine. Later they found out that the D should have been Time, Inc. After P amended the complaint, Time moved to dismiss because the amendment came after the statute of limitations had run. ISSUE: Does the amendment fall within the Rule 15(c) that the pleadings "related back" to the original filing? There are four factors to consider in determinng if something relates back (see book) and those factors have not been met. HOLD: the court must follow the plain language of the statute. The allowed statute of limitations has passed, and therefore the amendment cannot be allowed.
NOTE: in 1991 Rule 15(c) was amended so that this type of ruling would not be possible. A mistake of a party name could be amended and is within the meaning of "relating back." See Rule 15(c)(3).
Cunningham v. Quaker Oats Company, Fisher Price Division, 107 F.R.D. 66 (1985) p289.
Father of a child who was injured when he ingested a small toy, brought suit against the manufacturer and was awarded damages for the father and mother. ISSUE: the mother was not named in the original complaint. HOLD: Rule 15(b) allows pleading to conform to the proof and may be done at any time. The case would not have been substantially different if the mother’s name had appeared on the complaint. The proof mandates that she be included.
Mammarella v. Consolidated Edison Co., 44 A.D.2d 571 (1974) p291.
See book
Scherer v. Mark, 64 Cal. App. 3d 834 (1976) p293.
After running of statute of limitations, P amended complaint to include the name of her doctor. The doctor filed a demurrer which was sustained. D given leave to amend. The amended complaint set out a new cause of action against the doctor. HELD: Appellate court affirmed the trial court in that P knew all basic facts at the outset. Pleading against the doctor could not "relate back" to the original filing because the cause of action alleged against him had been itself added after limitations had run. An amendment with a new cause of action will be barred if filed after the statute of limitations had run.