7th Circuit reverses on relation back issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A plaintiff attempting to sue his employer for breach of contract should have been able to file an amended complaint with relation back to the date of the original complaint in order to correct the defendant even though the statute of limitations had expired, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded today.

In Rex M. Joseph Jr., trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Timothy Wardrop v. Elan Motorsports Technologies Racing Corp., No. 10-1420, Timothy Wardrop originally sued Elan Motorsports Technology Racing Corp. alleging breach of a written employment contract. Several years later, Wardrop, who at some point during the litigation went bankrupt, discovered he named the wrong defendant and his employer was actually Elan Motorsports Technologies Inc. He sought leave to amend the complaint to change the defendant to Elan Inc. with relation back to the date of the original complaint.

The District judge ruled the proposed amended complaint didn’t relate back, relying on Hall v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 469 F.3d 590, 596 (7th Circ. 2006), saying it was Wardrop’s responsibility to determine the proper party to sue and do so before the statute of limitations expires. The District judge dismissed the suit after concluding there was no controversy between the parties.

But that was an error, the 7th Circuit ruled, citing Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S.Ct. 2485 (2010), which changed what courts had understood to be the proper standard for deciding whether an amended complaint relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. The only two inquires a District Court is allowed to make regarding this issue is whether the defendant who is sought to be added by the amendment knew or should have known that the plaintiff, had it not been for a mistake, would have sued him instead; and whether even if so, the delay in the plaintiff’s discovering the mistake impaired the new defendant’s ability to defend himself.

“The fact that the plaintiff was careless in failing to discover his mistake is relevant to a defendant’s claim of prejudice; the longer the delay in amending the complaint was, the likelier the new defendant is to have been placed at a disadvantage in the litigation. But carelessness is no longer a ground independent of prejudice for refusing to allow relation back,” wrote Judge Richard Posner.

Elan Inc. knew that Wardrop intended to sue it instead of Elan Racing but did nothing to clear up the confusion. It knew that Wardrop had his employment contract with Elan Inc. In addition, Elan Inc. brought on itself any harm it has suffered from the delay and can’t be allowed to gain an advantage from doing that, he continued.

The judges ordered the District Court to allow the amended complaint substituting Elan Inc. as the defendant with relation back to the original date of the complaint. Also on remand, the District judge should consider whether the differences between the amendment complaint and the original warrant rejection of the amended complaint.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.