Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff brought a suit in negligence against Costa Cruise. After the expiration of the statute of limitations, Plaintiff cross-moved to amend her complaint to add Costa Crociere. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Costa Crociere on July 11, 2008. Costa Crociere thereafter filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not relate back to the date of her original complaint and that, therefore, Plaintiff’s suit was outside the statute of limitations.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Relating back under FRCP Rule 15(c) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party’s knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.

Facts.

On February 21, 2007, Plaintiff was injured while on board a cruise ship operated by Costa Crociere. Plaintiff’s ticket listed Costa Cruise on the front of the ticket but identified Costa Crociere as the carrier on the back of the ticket. On February 1, 2008, Plaintiff brought a suit in negligence against Costa Cruise. The statute of limitations expired three weeks later. After the expiration of the statute of limitations, Costa Cruise alerted Plaintiff to Costa Crociere’s identity as the proper defendant on several different occasions. Costa Cruise ultimately moved for summary judgment on grounds that it was not the proper defendant. Plaintiff cross-moved to amend her complaint to add Costa Crociere. The district court denied Costa Cruise’s motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff and Costa Cruise then stipulated to dismiss Costa Cruise from the action. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Costa Crociere on July 11, 2008. Costa Crociere thereafter filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not relate back to the date of her original complaint and that, therefore, Plaintiff’s suit was outside the statute of limitations. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue.

Does relating back an amended complaint under FRCP Rule 15(c) depends on the amending party’s knowledge or timeliness?

Held.

No. The Court held that a plaintiff is allowed to amend the name of a defendant when he or she gets it wrong in the original complaint.

Discussion.

Relating back under FRCP Rule 15(c) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party’s knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading. More precisely, Rule 15(c) allows an amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original pleading if: (1) the claim against the new defendant involves the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original complaint; (2) the new defendant received notice of the lawsuit such that it would not be prejudiced by being named; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that it would have been sued but for the plaintiff’s mistake about its identity. Additionally, Rule 15(c) does not provide for undue delay as a basis for denying relation back and, in fact, mandates relation back once its requirements are met.

Here, Costa Crociere, which had constructive notice of Plaintiff’s complaint, should have known that this confusion on Plaintiff’s part had resulted in Plaintiff’s mistakenly naming Costa Cruises as the defendant.  These facts demonstrated that Costa Crociere had known or should have known that, but for Plaintiff’s mistake, it would have been named in the suit. Therefore, relation back was mandated. In addition, simply being aware of two parties does not necessarily mean that a plaintiff cannot make a mistake in naming the wrong party. For instance, a plaintiff could be aware of the two different parties but still be mistaken as to the specific roles played by each party. In fact, Plaintiff’s complaint demonstrates confusion as to which company owned and operated the cruise ship Plaintiff was injured on.  For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.