Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendants in state court, on the date before the statute of limitations ran, for violation of his civil rights, but did not identify three of the parties. Defendant removed the case to federal court and Plaintiff later moved to amend the complaint to include the identity of two of the unknown parties. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run against the two later identified parties.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adding an additional party by amendment of the pleadings only relates back to the date of the original complaint if the parties originally listed were listed by “mistake.” “Mistake” means the wrong name, not listing “unknown” or something else to indicate lack of knowledge or identity of the party.
Because Worthington's failure to name Wilson and Wall was due to a lack of knowledge as to their identity, and not a mistake in their names, Worthington was prevented from availing himself of the relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c).View Full Point of Law
Issue. Does Plaintiff’s amendment of its complaint to identify the two police officers “relate back” to the date the original complaint was filed under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Held. No. Under the old version of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party later added by amendment must receive actual notice of the action pending against it before the statute of limitations runs in order for the amendment to relate back to the date of the original complaint. Under the new version of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party need only be “aware” of the action pending against it within 120 days of the complaint being filed in order to relate back to the date of the original complaint. The failure to name parties due to lack of knowledge is not naming different parties by “mistake.” Therefore, the exception for “mistake” under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply if the party seeking amendment did not initially know the identity of the party. Therefore, Plaintiff’s later amendment to include the identity of the police officers does not relate back to the date the complaint was originally filed. Illinois state law pertaining to relation back does not govern the issue. State law only applies when the state law addresses an issue the federal law does not. Because it is clear that Seventh Circuit precedent states that unknown parties are not mistaken parties subject to the “relation back” rule, the federal law addresses the issue. Thus, federal law applies.
Discussion. This case articulates the rule of “relation back” under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, it shows a situation where relation back does not apply, particularly in the case where a party is listed as “unknown.” Finally, the Court holds that Rule 15(c)’s “relation back” rule and exceptions to the same applies when there is an issue regarding whether the statute of limitations is tolled.