Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 542.0

529US2

Unit: $U49

[10-24-00 10:29:50] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 460 (2000)

467

Opinion of the Court

ask, therefore, whether Nelson in fact had a fair chance, be-
fore alteration of the judgment, to respond and be heard.
Rule 15 and the due process for which it provides, how-
ever, demand a more reliable and orderly course. First,
as the Rule indicates, pleading in response to an amended
complaint is a prerogative of parties, see Fed. Rule Civ.
Proc. 15(a), and Nelson was not a party prior to the Dis-
trict Court’s ruling on Adams’ motion to amend. Second,
as Rule 15 further prescribes, the clock on an added party’s
time to respond does not start running until the new plead-
ing naming that party is served, see ibid., just as the clock
on an original party’s time to respond does not start running
until the original pleading is served, see Fed. Rule Civ.
Proc. 12(a)(1)(A). This is not to say that Rule 15 is itself
a constitutional requirement. Beyond doubt, however, a
prospective party cannot fairly be required to answer an
amended pleading not yet permitted, framed, and served.1
In support of its holding that Nelson was not prejudiced
when added as a party and subjected to judgment, the
Federal Circuit relied on its prior decision in Fromson v.
Citiplate, Inc., 886 F. 2d 1300 (1989). See 175 F. 3d, at 1349–
1350, and n. 7. The reliance is puzzling, for the circum-
stances in Fromson were crucially different from those
presented here. The plaintiff in Fromson prevailed on an
infringement claim and subsequently moved to hold the
owners of the judgment-proof defendant corporation indi-
vidually liable. To that extent only, Fromson resembles the

1 Even when an amendment relates back to the original date of plead-
ing under Rule 15(c), as Adams contends its amendment does, the rela-
tion back cannot, consistently with due process, deny a party all opportu-
nity to be heard in response to the amendment. We also note in this
regard that the instant case does not fall under Rule 15(c)(3), which deals
with amendments that change the party or the name of the party against
whom claims are asserted. That subsection applies only in cases in-
volving “a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.” Fed.
Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(3)(B). Respondent Adams made no such mistake.
It knew of Nelson’s role and existence and, until it moved to amend its
pleading, chose to assert its claim for costs and fees only against OCP.