IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

MICHAEL MILLS, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) C.A. No. N14C-01-073 ALR

J. E. M. ENTERPRISES, Inc., )

Defendant and )

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HARVEY HANNA & )

ASSOCIATES, Inc., )

Third-Party Defendant )

Submitted: October 21, 2014

Decided: November 17, 2014

Upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint 

GRANTED

Plaintiff Michael Mills has filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to add a 

direct claim against Third-Party Defendant Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc., 

which opposes Plaintiff’s Motion. After oral argument, the parties submitted 

briefing at the Court’s request. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

the Complaint, the Court makes the following findings:

1. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff slipped and fell on July 2, 2012.

2. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 9, 2014 against Defendant J.E.M. 

based on Plaintiff’s understanding that Defendant J.E.M. was the party 
2

responsible for providing cleaning and janitorial services on the premises 

where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell.

3. On February 21, 2014, Defendant J.E.M. filed an Answer and Third-Party 

Complaint, asserting that Third-Party Defendant Hanna was the party 

responsible for maintaining the interior of the building where Plaintiff 

claims to have slipped and fallen. 

4. Third-Party Defendant Hanna was served with the Third-Party Complaint on 

April 7, 2014, and filed its Answer on June 24, 2014. On that same day, 

Third-Party Defendant Hanna also served discovery on Plaintiff.

5. On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel notified counsel for Defendant J.E.M. 

and counsel for Third-Party Defendant Hanna that Plaintiff intended to 

amend the Complaint to assert claims directly against Third-Party Defendant 

Hanna. Counsel for Defendant J.E.M. promptly responded that Defendant 

did not object. On July 23, 2014, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant Hanna 

responded that Third-Party Defendant could not consent to the amendment 

because the applicable statute of limitations had run.

6. On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend the Complaint, which 

is now pending before the Court and is the subject of this Order. 
3

7. The applicable statute of limitations for the alleged incident expired on July 

2, 2014.

1 If suit had been filed at the expiration of the statute, service of 

process was required within 120 days, no later than October 30, 2014.2

 

8. The Court issued a Trial Scheduling Order on August 15, 2014, setting the 

trial date of July 27, 2015, as well as other related deadlines, including a 

discovery deadline of March 9, 2015. 

9. The Court may grant a motion for leave to amend or add a complaint after 

the statute of limitations for the proposed claim has expired, if permitted 

under the relation-back provision of Rule 15(c).3

10. Rule 15(c)(3) requires the proposed claim relate back to the same conduct, 

transaction, or occurrence described in the original complaint.4

 The effect of 

the rule is to enlarge the statute of limitations.5

 Additionally, the party 

opposing the amendment must have been put on notice of the existence of 

the potential additional plaintiffs and their claims in order to prevent 

prejudice to the opposing party’s ability to defend against the proposed 

claims on the merits.6

 1 10 Del. C. § 8119. 2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4(j).

3 Chaplake Holdings, LTD. v. Chrysler, 766 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2001).

4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(c)(2); Mullen v. Alarmguard, Inc., 625 A.2d 258, 263 (Del. 1993).

5 Mergenthaler, Inc. v. Jefferson, 332 A.2d 396, 398 (Del. 1975).

6 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(c)(3); Mullen, 625 A.2d at 265.
4

11. Despite the general liberal policy of permitting leave to amend under Rule 

15(a), a motion to add additional plaintiffs by amendment after the statute of 

limitations has run must be denied unless it satisfies the relation-back 

requirements of Rule 15(c).7

 

12.In Chaplake Holdings the Delaware Supreme Court considered the issue of 

adding additional plaintiffs to a cause of action under Rule 15(c). The Court 

stated that interpretation of Rule 15(c) requires a balance of encouraging the 

disposition of cases on their merits against ensuring defendants receive 

enough notice of proposed claims in order to defend against the action 

without prejudice.8 In Chaplake, the Court found the defendant was not 

prejudiced by permitting additional plaintiffs because the claims of the new 

plaintiffs were identical to the claims provided in the original complaint. 

Furthermore, the proposed additional plaintiffs were originally included as 

parties to the action.9 Thus, the defendant was on notice as to the identity of 

the plaintiffs and their claims and was not prejudiced in defending against 

the claims on the merits.10

13.Here, the relation-back requirements have been satisfied. First, the claim by 

Plaintiff against Third-Party Defendant Hanna arises out of the same 

 7 Mullen, 625 A.2d at 263.

8 Chaplake Holdings, LTD., 766 A.2d at 7.

9 Id. at 8.

10 Id. at 7-8.
5

occurrence as the slip and fall, which is the subject of the Complaint and the 

Third-Party Complaint. In fact, the Plaintiff’s proposed amendment asserts 

claims identical to the claims in Plaintiff’s original pleading, as well as 

claims identical to those set forth in the Third-Party Complaint. Next, 

Third-Party Defendant Hanna was on notice of the claim within 120 days of 

the expiration of the statute of limitations. Last, Third-Party Defendant 

Hanna filed a responsive pleading and actively engaged in discovery with 

Plaintiff as to his claim. 

14. Therefore, the interests of justice require the Court to grant Plaintiff’s 

Motion.11 Third-Party Defendant Hanna was on notice of Plaintiff’s claims 

before the Court assigned a trial date for this case and Third-Party Defendant 

Hanna has actively engaged in discovery to prepare a defense. Indeed, there 

is no prejudice to Third-Party Defendant Hanna.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, this 17th day of

November, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Mills’ Motion to Amend Complaint is 

hereby GRANTED. The Amended Complaint shall be filed within ten (10) 

days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli

____________________________________

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli

 11 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a); Spady v. Keen, 2006 WL 2559853, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 25, 2006).