Opinion ID: 1817017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the proposed amendment relate back to the original complaint?

Text: The Parkers assert their malicious prosecution claim is not time barred because the proposed amendment relates back to the original complaint. Rule 15(c), Miss.R.Civ.P. permits pleadings, which would otherwise be time barred by the statute of limitations, to be amended. The comments advise that the first test for whether an amendment relates back or not is whether the amended claim arose from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint. [T]he standard for determining whether amendments qualify under Rule 15(c) is not simply an identity of transaction test; although not expressly mentioned in the rule, the courts also inquire into whether the opposing party has been put on notice regarding the claim or defense raised by the amended pleading. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1497 at 495 (1971). In Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 150, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1725, 80 L.Ed.2d 196, 201, fn. 1 (1984), it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted this notice criteria: ... The rationale of Rule 15(c) is that a party who has been notified of litigation concerning a particular occurrence has been given all the notice that statutes of limitation were intended to provide. 3 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.15[3], p. 15-194 (1984) ... It appears that the Parkers' amendment fails the identity of transaction test as well as the notice criteria. The conduct, transaction, or occurrence which gave rise to the Parkers' original complaint was their arrest. The conduct, transaction, or occurrence which gave rise to their proposed amendment was their prosecution. These occurrences are separate and distinct events. As such, there is no identity between these transactions and applying the first test, the proposed amendment should not relate back to the original complaint. Secondly, applying the notice criteria, since the original complaint failed to inform defendants of litigation concerning a particular occurrence (i.e. the criminal prosecution), the defendants were not given all the notice that statutes of limitation were intended to provide. The amended claim cannot be rehabilitated through the relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c).