ILNews

Federal Bar Update: New FRCP 15(a) is a little-noticed rules amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As federal practitioners well know by now, sweeping changes to the federal rules took effect Dec. 1, with most of those changes incorporating the “days are days” time computation amendments. Those amendments seem to be settling in among the bar with few issues.

In the midst of that group of rule changes, one rule of practice saw significant change but received little attention (including from the undersigned), probably because it was likewise part of the “days are days” amendments. Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) – dealing with amendments of pleadings – was significantly rewritten.

The changes affect when a party who has filed a pleading may amend that pleading, for instance, if a plaintiff has filed a complaint when they can amend it. Under prior Rule 15(a), a responsive pleading (e.g., an answer to a complaint) cut off the right to amend without party permission or leave of court. Old Rule 15(a) provided: “A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. …” Under the old rule, if plaintiff filed a complaint and defendant answered, plaintiff could not amend without agreement or leave of court

This has changed significantly. Amended Rule 15(a) now provides:

“(1) Amending as a Matter of Course.

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”

The result is that parties filing complaints now have 21 days to amend their complaint after service of the defendant’s answer.

The official comments to this amended rule explain the change: “The … amendment to Rule 15(a) limits the time when a party may amend a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required once as a matter of course. The proposal eliminates the distinction drawn by present Rule 15(a), under which a responsive pleading immediately cuts off the right to amend, while a Rule 12 motion does not cut off the right and prolongs the time to amend a pleading until the motion is resolved. Significant problems can arise when a party files an amended pleading as a matter of right on the eve of a court’s ruling on a dispositive Rule 12 motion. Under the proposed amendment, a party may file an amended pleading without leave of court within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a Rule 12 motion, whichever is earlier. After that, a party may file an amended pleading only with leave of court.”

With this amendment, counsel in federal litigation now have a new deadline to calendar. Specifically, after filing a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, counsel should watch for the responsive pleading and then calendar 21 days later as their deadline to freely amend their own pleading.•

__________

John Maley is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, where he practices nationally in litigation, employment, and appellate matters. The opinions in this column are those of the author.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT