Document: 529 U.S. 460120 S.Ct. 1579146 L.Ed.2d 530 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NELSONv.ADAMS USA, INC., et al. CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 99-502. Argued March 27, 2000 Decided April 25, Ohio Cellular Products Corporation (OCP) sued respondent Adams Inc. (Adams), patent infringement. District dismissed OCP's claim and ordered OCP to pay Adams' costs attorney fees. In awarding fees, court determined that petitioner Nelson, president sole shareholder OCP, had deceitfully withheld from Patent Trademark Office prior art rendered patents invalid, behavior constituted inequitable conduct chargeable OCP. Fearing might unable fee, moved under Rule 15 Federal Rules Civil Procedure amend its pleading add personally, party whom fees could collected. also asked court, 59(e), judgment make Nelson immediately liable fee award. granted motion full. affirming entered against Circuit acknowledged was "uncommon" after entry judgment. Nevertheless, not demonstrated prejudice, Appeals concluded, because he made showing anything different or additional would have stave off party, his individual capacity, outset. That over vigorous dissent, apparently satisfied Court's simultaneous allowance amendment due process. Held: erred amending upon permitting pleading. Due process, reflected well 12, required given an opportunity respond contest personal liability award before him. Pp. 4_11. (a) never afforded proper him, adjudged very first moment legally issue. observed long undue prejudice shown, process met if 15's requirements amended pleadings are met. But were here, does countenance such swift passage pleader's favor. Because propriety allowing alteration depends only on state affairs what happens afterwards, both conveys circumstances which leave shall directs how litigation move forward following amendment. When grants adverse responding original lapsed, 15(a) gives so added "10 days service pleading" plead response. This respond, fundamental echo secured 12(a)(1). Thus, assumes filed anticipates party. served Indeed, ever actually composed court. Nor, joining accorded defenses Instead, him permission granted. Appeal judgment, case presents, did provide adequate defend imposition liability. Cf. American Surety Co. Baldwin, 287 156. Nothing record indicates affirmatively relinquished right merits belatedly stated capacity. knew soon alter ultimately subjected mean fact fair chance, heard. provides demand more reliable orderly course. First, indicates, response complaint prerogative parties, ruling amend. Second, further prescribes, clock party's start running until new naming served, just see 12(a)(1)(A). say itself constitutional requirement. Beyond doubt, however, prospective cannot fairly answer yet permitted, framed, served. 4_7. (b) arguments waived objections rejected. assertion jurisdiction absence-of-service beside point Nelson's winning argument based neither nor submission issues presented here unavailing counsel explained core unfairness imposing without going through prescribe. Further, majority dissent below understood issue them concerned postjudgment motion. Also rejected essential position there sufficient identity between bind ado, already Office, actual notice seeking collect "effective controller" personally participated witness hearing whether engaged conduct, concluded nothing Judicial predictions about outcome hypothesized substitute affords every stated. decision insulate liability, simply ensures right, originally sought awarded solely 7_11. 175 F.3d 1343, reversed remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion NOTICE: subject formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical other errors, order corrections may goes press. Justice Ginsburg 1 began when claiming eventually feared therefore means recover pursuit objective, party; full, simultaneously making subjecting affirmed. We hold 2 * successor corporation held two relating method manufacturing foamed padding used athletic equipment. 1994, maintained anticipated invalid 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). ruled favor infringement complaint. 3 then costs. ground who all relevant times Office. behavior, On January 20, 1998, amount $178,888.51 4 feared, altogether understandable concern; stemmed letter sent warning liquidated exposed than nominal amount. endeavor, reasoned flesh-and-blood behind person whose withholding precip- itated award, funds satisfy 5 motion, It Record, Doc. 126, ("Defendants [i.e., Adams] hereby _ granting Defendants their third name Donald E. (Nelson) defendant action include entered."). presenting offered reason why should altered immediately. id., 7_8. contend "necessary prevent manifest injustice," 8 (internal quotation deleted), explain once joined permitted side argument. seems paused question, allowed single stroke. 131. memorandum explaining addressed adding address altering same time. 130, 3_7. 6 affirmed Nelson. Prods., Inc., 1343 (1999). "uncommon," appeals acknowledged, Id., 1348. prejudiced joinder. conclusion failure show "anything done" outset litigation. 1351. panel, Judge Newman, obligate individually requirements. 1345, 1349, n. 5. 7 Seeking review Court, dispute portion sought. Pet. Cert. 11. What challenge, now us, II designed law Constitution guarantees. Fed. Civ. Proc. (Rules "shall construed administered secure just, speedy, inexpensive determination action."). sets out supplemental pleadings. score, "due met." F.3d, instant As Newman recognized her below, 1352. 9 afterwards. Accordingly, 15(a). 12. 10 156 (1932). points indicating proceedings comply 15, they comport See, e.g., Mullane Central Hanover Bank Trust 339 306, 314 (1950) (" `The requisite heard.' ") (quoting Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 394 (1914)). 11 true One ask, therefore, provides, 15(a), ibid., served.1 12 support holding relied Fromson Citiplate, 886 F.2d 1300 (1989). 1349_50 7. reliance puzzling, crucially those here. plaintiff prevailed subsequently owners judgment-proof liable. To extent only, resembles case. Notably unlike Adams, trial suspected able pay. denied corporation's false assurances solvent. F.2d, 1301, 1304. Having informed plaintiffs sue capacities, having acted deliberately derail suit, hardly assert another's mistake choice compromised ability defend. Their problem, aptly opinion, "a bed own making." Here, contrast, Nor indication initially relief some assurance regarding solvency. 13 summarize, style questioned even systems, real imaginary, less ours process.2 B 14 strongly urges, maintains absence failing raise promptly Brief Respondents 32_41. argument, rests gained thereby reach beyond corporate till into pocket. Waiver point.3 similar vein, coming closer dispositive issue, submits "did `due process' presented, these raised Petitioner" 47 (emphasis deleted). indeed general rule must lower courts preserved potential grounds higher courts. principle incantation particular words; rather, requires put substance Beech Aircraft Corp. Rainey, 488 153, 174_175 (1988). And us declaring matter Appeals. 16 questioning appellate bench, client's our rules civil procedure prescribe.4 Both (majority opinion); 1352 (Newman, dissenting). Our resolution considered passed below. 17 Beneath technical waiver, Circuit's decision: There 1346. 1349. He conduct. ibid. 18 conclude factors justified piercing veil, 6, part, disavowed veil-piercing theory, 129, (stating, "Adams request `disregard form' "); Tape Oral Arg. 98_1448 (CA Feb. 3, 1999) (expressly stating concern veil). One-person corporations authorized lightly labeled sham. Gregory Helvering, 293 465, 469 (1935) (finding sham owned entirely one person, "no business purpose"); Kirno Hill Holt, 618 982, 985 (CA2 1980) (a veil pierced merely owner). where concerned, one-person appropriate permit innovation exposing inventors possibly ruinous consequences. legitimacy corporation, short, 19 much turned opposing "[N]o basis advanced," panel "to believe allegation outset." endorse speculation. instead judicial wrote dissent: "The law, most fundamental, render found charged." 1354. 20 surely twice represented oral Tr. 9, 19_20, seeks we hold, him.5 21 22 For reasons stated, reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 23 ordered. Notes 24 1. Even relates back date 15(c), contends does, relation cannot, consistently deny heard note regard fall 15(c)(3), deals amendments change claims asserted. subsection applies cases involving concerning party." 15(c)(3)(B). Respondent mistake. role existence and, pleading, chose 25 2. A well-known work offers example: " `Herald, read accusation!' said King. White Rabbit blew three blasts trumpet, unrolled parchment scroll, follows: Queen Hearts, she tarts, All summer day: Knave stole took quite away!' `Consider your verdict,' King jury. `Not yet, yet!' interrupted. `There's great deal come that!' L. Carroll, Alice Wonderland Through Looking Glass 108 (Messner, 1982) original). 26 3. waiver waive charges that, absent included document. little sense penalize can help streamline litigation, barring sometimes extend respond. 12(a)(1)(B) (rather within service, waiving 60 waiver). 27 4. "[I]t's wrong individual, nonserved, nonsued, nonlitigated-against rules. you want somebody, them, litigate get them." 1999). 28 Once submitted, open urge, prematurely 22_28, preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars contesting findings during Adams. Restatement (Second) Judgments §39 (1980). venture possible success

Category: 3