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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT