Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
14. Should the court permit the comedian to supplement the pleadings with the additional intentional tort claim?
The actor was served with the complaint on January 24, 2019. On January 25, 2019, the actor, upset about the lawsuit, deliberately drove his car into the comedian's car. A week later, the comedian moved to add an intentional tort claim in a supplemental pleading against the actor in the existing lawsuit.
On January 1, 2019, a comedian from State A filed a diversity action in State A federal court against an actor from State B. The lawsuit was based on alleged wrongful business torts that occurred on January 15, 2014. The comedian is seeking $80,000 in compensatory damages. State A has a five-year statute of limitations for tort claims.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Sometimes a statute of limitations runs out between the filing of the original complaint and the amendment. To avoid a time bar, a litigant may argue that their amended pleading «relates back» to the date of the original pleading. An amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading when the claim or defenses asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading.
FRCP 15(d) allows a plaintiff to move to add a «supplemental pleading» to an original complaint, defined as an event, occurrence, or transaction that occurred after the date of the original pleading. The court may give permission for a supplemental pleading.
D is correct. The issue here is whether the intentional tort claim is a proper supplemental pleading or an amendment to the original claim, implicating the «relation back» doctrine. The comedian filed the original complaint on January 1, 2019, and the car accident, the actor's retaliation to the suit, occurred on January 25, 2019. As such, the intentional tort claim is based on a related event that happened after the filing of the original complaint and, with the court's permission, may be a proper supplemental pleading under FRCP 15(d). There is no need to invoke the amendment process or the relation back doctrine here.
A is incorrect. This answer choice is referring to the applicability of the statute of limitations to the relation back doctrine. The intentional tort claim, which occurred on January 25, 2019, has five years before the statute of limitations runs on it.
Moreover, the intentional tort claim arose after the original complaint was filed, and FRCP 15(d) allows the court to permit the comedian from supplementing the pleading with the new, related claim. Whether the statute of limitations has already run on the business tort claim is of no consequence. The intentional tort claim may still be timely filed without using the relation back doctrine, because, as explained above, the comedian may file it as a supplemental pleading.
B is incorrect. The fact that the intentional tort claim did not occur until after the original complaint was filed is the reason why the court may allow the comedian to file it as a supplemental pleading, not a reason to deny it.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. The court should allow the comedian to supplement the original complaint with the intentional tort claim, but not because it relates back. FRCP 15(d) allows the court to authorize a supplemental pleading regarding a related event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Here, the retaliatory car accident happened after the original business tort claim was filed, and thus, the supplemental pleading is proper.