Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Bonerb v. Caron Foundation

United States District Court for the Western District of New York · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAmendment of PleadingsRelation BackStatute of LimitationsFRCP 15(a)FRCP 15(c)relation backstatute of limitations

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that he was injured on November 29, 1991, when he slipped and fell while playing basketball on defendant's recreational basketball court at defendant's rehabilitation facility in Pennsylvania. The original complaint, filed on October 1, 1993, alleged that plaintiff was a rehabilitation patient participating in a mandatory exercise program and that defendant negligently maintained the basketball court. After substitute counsel was appointed, plaintiff moved on September 1, 1994, to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for counseling malpractice. The proposed amendment alleged that the exercise program was mandated as part of plaintiff's treatment and that defendant negligently performed rehabilitation and counseling care.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend to add a professional or counseling malpractice claim when that claim would otherwise be barred by Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations unless it relates back to the filing date of the original complaint under Rule 15(c).

Rule

Leave to amend under Rule 15(a) should be freely given absent undue prejudice, undue delay, or bad faith, but a time-barred amendment is futile unless it relates back under Rule 15(c). Under Rule 15(c), an otherwise untimely claim relates back when it arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; courts ask whether the original complaint's operative facts gave the defendant notice of the general facts from which the later-asserted claim arises, and a change in legal theory will relate back if the factual situation remains the same.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maya Ortiz timely sued Cedar Grove Recovery Center, a Pennsylvania nonprofit operating in Erie, alleging she was injured during a required ropes-course session because staff negligently maintained the equipment. After the applicable limitations period expired, she moved to amend to add a professional-negligence claim alleging the center negligently designed and supervised that required therapeutic activity.

Should the court most likely allow the amendment as relating back?

Explanation. Rule 15(c) permits relation back when the amended claim arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading. The key question is whether the original complaint's operative facts gave the defendant notice of the general facts underlying the later claim. A new negligence theory may relate back if the factual situation remains the same. Here, both claims concern the same required activity, the same event, and the same injury, so the amendment should relate back. (Derived from Bonerb v. Caron Foundation (n.d.).)