Opinion ID: 772562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relation Back of the Complaint.

Text: 48 The district court decided that VKK's amended complaint, which added TJI as a defendant, did not relate back to the filing of the initial complaint and that the claims against TJI were thus time-barred. VKK Corp. v. Nat'l Football League, 187 F.R.D. 498 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). We review for abuse of discretion a district court's determination that an amended complaint does not relate back to the original complaint. See Leonelli v. Pennwalt Corp., 887 F.2d 1195, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989); Wilson v. Fairchild Republic Co., 143 F.3d 733, 738 (2d Cir. 1988). 49 If a complaint is amended to include an additional defendant after the statute of limitations has run, the amended complaint is not time barred if it relates back to a timely filed complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). The goal of relation-back principles is to prevent parties against whom claims are made from taking unjust advantage of otherwise inconsequential pleading errors to sustain a limitations defense. Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11, 19 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Advisory Committee Note (1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure describes the requirements necessary for an amended complaint to relate back to an original complaint: 50 An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when 51 .... 52 (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, or 53 (3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and, within [120 days of filing the complaint], the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party. 54 There are thus three requirements that must be met before an amended complaint that names a new party can be deemed to relate back to the original timely complaint. First, both complaints must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. Second, the additional defendant must have been omitted from the original complaint by mistake. Third, the additional defendant must not be prejudiced by the delay. See Soto v. Brooklyn Corr. Facility, 80 F.3d 34, 35-36 (2d Cir. 1996). VKK's amended complaint meets all three requirements. 55 First, both the original and the amended complaints arise out of the same conduct: the alleged agreement between TJI and the NFL defendants pursuant to which TJI discontinued negotiations with VKK for relocation of the Patriots to Jacksonville. 56 Second, TJI was omitted from the original complaint because of a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)(B). The district court concluded that TJI was strategically omitted and TJL was sued because it was the recipient of the payback franchise. VKK Corp., 187 F.R.D. at 499. But in its original complaint, VKK describes its interactions in the spring of 1991 with an entity that it calls Touchdown Jacksonville, Ltd. At that time, however, TJI was the only Touchdown Jacksonville entity extant, and TJI was concededly the entity whose actions are described in the complaint. TJL was not created until the fall of 1991. We see no plausible reason for VKK purposefully to claim negotiations with and ascribe actions to a company that did not exist. We have found nothing in the extensive record on appeal to support the district court's theory as to VKK's strategy. 57 Third, the amended complaint also meets the no prejudice requirement. TJI knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)(B). TJI and TJL had an ongoing relationship. Both were created to accomplish the same goal bringing an NFL football franchise to Jacksonville, Florida and in October 1991, TJI transferred some its assets to TJL in order to help accomplish that goal. The president of TJI, David Seldin, was also the president of TJL's corporate general partner. Seldin admitted that he read the original complaint when it was first filed in November 1994 and thus should have known that some of the allegations therein were meant to be directed at TJI. See Advanced Magnetics Inc., 106 F.3d at 19 (holding that '[t]he substitution of... parties after the applicable statute of limitations may have run is not significant when the change is merely formal and in no way alters the known facts and issues on which the action is based.') (quoting Staren v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 529 F.2d 1257, 1263 (7th Cir. 1976)); Peterson v. Sealed Air Corp., 902 F.2d 1232, 1237 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding that a corporation might receive notice within the meaning of Rule 15(c) if its president reads about the suit in The Wall Street Journal and recognizes that his firm is the right defendant and that [a] complaint naming GM that went on and on about the plaintiff's Thunderbird would alert Ford's agent that Ford was the right party.); William H. McGee & Co. v. M/V Ming Plenty, 164 F.R.D. 601, 606 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (holding that [t]he misidentification of similarly named or related companies is the classic case for application of Rule 15(c) relation back.). Seldin must have recognized that paragraphs 60 and 61 of the complaint did not mean to refer to TJL because, as he testified, TJL did not even exist in April 1991. 58 Because the amended complaint squarely meets all three requirements of Rule 15(c), we hold that the district court abused its discretion in deciding that it did not relate back to the original complaint, and that the claims against TJI were therefore time-barred. 59