ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT