Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRelation BackAmended PleadingsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 15(c)Rule 15(c)(1)(C)Rule 4(m)relation back

Facts

Krupski was injured on the cruise ship Costa Magica and her passenger ticket identified Costa Crociere as the carrier, while also prominently referring to Costa Cruise and listing its Florida address. Before the one-year limitations period expired, Krupski sued Costa Cruise, alleging that it owned, operated, managed, supervised, and controlled the ship. After the limitations period expired, Costa Cruise stated in its answer, disclosure statement, and summary judgment motion that Costa Crociere was the proper defendant. Krupski then moved to amend, served Costa Crociere, and Costa Crociere moved to dismiss on the ground that the amended complaint did not relate back.

Issue

When a plaintiff amends a complaint after the limitations period to name a new defendant, does Rule 15(c)(1)(C) turn on the plaintiff's knowledge or delay in amending, or on whether the newly added defendant knew or should have known that it would have been sued but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity?

Rule

Under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), relation back of an amendment changing a party depends on whether, within the Rule 4(m) period, the party to be added received notice sufficient to avoid prejudice and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. The plaintiff's knowledge of the party's existence and the plaintiff's delay in seeking amendment do not themselves defeat relation back; the plaintiff's conduct matters only insofar as it informs what the prospective defendant knew or should have known about whether a mistake occurred.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel was injured by a loading ramp at a ferry terminal in Seattle. She timely sued HarborWest Ticketing, alleging it owned and operated the terminal, but within the Rule 4(m) period HarborWest Marine Operations, a related company with shared counsel, received notice of the suit and knew the complaint actually described its own operational role.

After the limitations period expired, Nina moved to amend to substitute HarborWest Marine Operations. Under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), which is the strongest argument that the amendment relates back?

Explanation. Rule 15(c)(1)(C) focuses on what the party to be added knew or should have known during the Rule 4(m) period, not on the plaintiff's diligence or what the plaintiff should have known before filing. If the newly added defendant had timely notice and should have understood that the complaint described its conduct and that omission resulted from a mistake about identity, the amendment relates back. The rule's requirements are mandatory, not discretionary. (Derived from Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A. (2010).)