Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 541.0

529US2

Unit: $U49

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

466

NELSON v. ADAMS USA, INC.

Opinion of the Court

The propriety of allowing a pleading alteration depends
not only on the state of affairs prior to amendment but also
on what happens afterwards. Accordingly, Rule 15 both
conveys the circumstances under which leave to amend
shall be granted and directs how the litigation will move
forward following an amendment. When a court grants
leave to amend to add an adverse party after the time for
responding to the original pleading has lapsed, the party
so added is given “10 days after service of the amended
pleading” to plead in response. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a).
This opportunity to respond, fundamental to due process,
is the echo of the opportunity to respond to original plead-
ings secured by Rule 12. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1).
Thus, Rule 15 assumes an amended pleading will be ﬁled and
anticipates service of that pleading on the adverse party.
Nelson was never served with an amended pleading.

In-
deed, no such pleading was ever actually composed and ﬁled
in court. Nor, after the amendment naming him as a party,
was Nelson accorded 10 days to state his defenses against
personal liability for costs and fees.
Instead, judgment was
entered against him the moment permission to amend the
pleading was granted. Appeal after judgment, in the cir-
cumstances this case presents, did not provide an ade-
quate opportunity to defend against the imposition of lia-
bility. Cf. American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156
(1932). Adams points to nothing in the record indicating
that Nelson afﬁrmatively relinquished his right to respond
on the merits of the case belatedly stated against him in
his individual capacity. Accordingly, the proceedings did not
comply with Rule 15, and neither did they comport with due
process. See, e. g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950) (“ ‘The fundamental requi-
site of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.’ ”)
(quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914)).

It is true that Nelson knew as soon as Adams moved to
amend the pleading and alter the judgment that he might
liability. One could
ultimately be subjected to personal