Krupski v. Costa Crociere SpA
| Decision Date | 21 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-337.,09-337. |
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 2485 |
| Parties | Wanda KRUPSKI, Petitioner, v. COSTA CROCIERE S. p. A. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Mark R. Bendure, Detroit, MI, for petitioner.
Robert S. Glazier, Miami, FL, for respondent.
Mark R. Bendure, Counsel of Record, Bendure & Thomas, Detroit, MI, Matthew L. Turner, Turner & Turner, P.C., Southfield, MI, for petitioner.
David J. Horr, Stephanie H. Wylie, Brian T. Scarry, Horr, Novak & Skipp, P.A., Miami, FL, Robert S. Glazier, Counsel of Record, Law Office of Robert S. Glazier, Miami, FL, for respondent.
Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs when an amended pleading "relates back" to the date of a timely filed original pleading and is thus itself timely even though it was filed outside an applicable statute of limitations. Where an amended pleading changes a party or a party's name, the Rule requires, among other things, that "the party to be brought in by amendment . . . knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity." Rule 15(c)(1)(C). In this case, the Court of Appeals held that Rule 15(c) was not satisfied because the plaintiff knew or should have known of the proper defendant before filing her original complaint. The court also held that relation back was not appropriate because the plaintiff had unduly delayed in seeking to amend. We hold that relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party's knowledge or its timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
On February 21, 2007, petitioner, Wanda Krupski, tripped over a cable and fractured her femur while she was on board the cruise ship Costa Magica. Upon her return home, she acquired counsel and began the process of seeking compensation for her injuries. Krupski's passenger ticket
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petty v. Byers
...defendant] knew or should have known that it would have been named as a defendant but for an error." Krupki v. Costa Crociere, 560 U.S. 538, 548, 130 S. Ct. 2485, 117 L.E.2d 48 (2010).Id. As a threshold matter, there is no question that the Amended Complaint satisfied the initial requiremen......
-
Ash v. Jacobson
...doctrine "is notice" to the putative defendants "and notice within the limitations period"); Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 548 (2010) ("Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) asks what the prospective defendant knew or should have known . . . not what the plaintiff knew or shouldhave know......
-
Perkins v. Iberville Parish Sch. Bd.
...Id. (quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 735 (1989)). 18. Rec. Doc. 8 at p. 2. 19. Id. (citing Krupski v. Costa Crociere SpA, 130 S.Ct. 2485, 2493 (2010); Skoczylas v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 961 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1992). 20. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 21. Ashcrof......
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. P. Angeles, No. 09–337.