The Supreme Court of the United States held that relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known and not on the amending party’s knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleadings. In Krupski v. Cociere, 2010 WL 2243705 (U.S.), Plaintiff sued for injuries she suffered on a cruise ship. She originally sued “Costa Cruises.” Pursuant to the ticket she notified Costa Cruise of her claims but was unable to reach a settlement. She filed a diversity negligence action against Costa Cruise. After the limitations period expired Costa Cruise brought Costa Coheirchi’s existence to plaintiff three times including in a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion and moved to amend the complaint to add Costa Coheirchi as a defendant. Court denied the motion for summary judgment and gave leave to amend. Subsequently Costa Coheirchi, represented by the same counsel as Costa Cruise moved to dismiss on the ground that the amended complaint did not relate back to the timely filing of the original pleading. The district court agreed and concluded that plaintiff had not made a mistake about the proper party’s liability because of the disclosures Costa Cruise had made concerning Costa Coheirchi. Despite the disclosures plaintiff had delayed in filing an amended complaint. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and pointed out that the ticket itself disclosed Costa Coheirchi’s identity as a potential party. Therefore it was appropriate to treat her as having chosen to sue one potential party over another.
The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Supreme Court stated,
“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 they “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 the revision 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.