Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, 71-1476 to 71-1478.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1476 to 71-1478.,71-1476 to 71-1478. |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 985 |
| Parties | Glenis MARTIN v. VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL BANK, Appellant in No. 71-1476 et al. Appeal of Albert COMMISSIONG. Appeal of Marie DANET. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Thomas W. Finucan, Bornn, McLaughlin & Finucan, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V. I., for appellants.
Alexander A. Farrelly, Birch, deJongh & Farrelly, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V. I., for appellee.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) January 26, 1972.
Plaintiff sought a judgment in the Municipal Court of the Virgin Islands against defendant-bank and two of its employees for false arrest. At the close of her evidence plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for false imprisonment. The court granted the motion. At the conclusion of the trial judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff. Defendants appealed to the District Court which affirmed.
Defendants' sole contention on appeal is that it was error for the Municipal Court to permit the amendment to add a claim for false imprisonment since the statute of limitations had then run on any new claim. Plaintiff argues that Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) clearly supports the granting of the amendment.
Rule 15(c) provides in pertinent part that "Whenever the claim . . . asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth . . . in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading." The plaintiff attempted to cash two travelers checks which the owner had transferred to her and which she endorsed. Because of a discrepancy between the owner's signature and the countersignature the bank employees caused plaintiff to be arrested and "imprisoned" under circumstances which rendered them civilly liable. We have no doubt that the false imprisonment claim arose out of the conduct or occurrence set forth in the original complaint. Thus, Rule 15(c) was applicable. The false imprisonment claim therefore related back to the date of the original pleading and was not barred by the statute of limitations.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boileau v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
...Although decided under Rule 15(c), this Court upheld the amendments of the complaint even at that late hour. Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, 455 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1972). Foman does however allow the amendment of a complaint to be denied when one of an enumerated set of factors--inclu......
-
Roper v. Spring Lake Development Co., 88CA1169
...65 S.Ct. 421, 89 L.Ed. 465 (1945); Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R. v. Clint, 235 F.2d 445 (10th Cir.1956); Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, 455 F.2d 985 (3rd Cir.1972); see also 3 Moore's Federal Practice 15.15 (2 ed.1989); 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 149......
-
Mingolla v. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co.
...of parties or claims, the amendment will relate back to the commencement of the suit. Id.; see also Martin v. Virgin Islands Nat'l Bank, 455 F.2d 985, 986 (3d Cir.1972) (per curiam). The 1991 amendments to Rule 15(c) emphasize that this rule must be liberally construed and read in conjuncti......
- Owens v. Commissioner