Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): more forgiving principle of relation back than the one provided in this rule, it should be available to save the claim."); Arendt v. Vetta Sports, Inc., 99 F.3d 231, 236 (7th Cir.1996). There is no meaningful distinction, however, between Illinois law on relation back and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B). See Henderson v. Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 932-33 (7th Cir.2001) ("Illinois law on relation back is not more forgiving [than federal law].”). Illinois permits relation back when the same two requirements are met: "(1) the original complaint was timely filed, and (2) the amended complaint grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.” Id.; see also Porter v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp., 227 Ill.2d 343, 317 Ill.Dec. 703, 882 N.E.2d 583, 591-92 (2008) (<HOLDING>). 38 . See R.46 at 3. 39 . There are several 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing similarities between illinois and federal law on relation back (B) holding expert testimony on probative similarities between works is unnecessary where the works are not highly technical and the jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert (C) holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern (D) holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward (E) holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law
Output (English): holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern