Fri., Oct. 17

1
Fri., Oct. 17
2
amendment
3
15(a) Amendments Before Trial.(1) Amending as a
Matter of Course. A party may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course within (A)
21 days after serving it, or (B) if the
pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive
pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
earlier.
4
15(a)(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases,
a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave. The court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.
5
Beeck v Aquaslide(8th Cir. 1977)
6
abuse of discretionde novo
7
relation back
8
(c) Relation Back of Amendments.    (1) When an
Amendment Relates Back.  An amendment to a
pleading relates back to the date of the original
pleading when        (A) the law that provides
the applicable statute of limitations allows
relation back        (B) the amendment asserts
a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct,
transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted
to be set        out in the original pleading
or
9
 - P sues D (within the statute of limitations)
for breach of contract- After the statute of
limitations had passed, P amends his complaint to
include a new theory of liability promissory
estoppel (which does not require a contract)- Is
Ps action for promissory estoppel time barred?
10
- P sues D (within the statute of limitations)
for battery- After the statute of limitations
had run on his breach of contract action against
D, P amends his complaint against D to include
the breach of contract action- Is it time
barred?
11
Blair v. Durham(6th Cir. 1943)
12
The issue here as to whether the statute of
limitations was tolled by the original complaint
depends upon whether the amendment stated a new
cause of action
13
 - P sues D (within the statute of limitations)
for breach of contract- After the statute of
limitations had passed, P amends his complaint to
include a new theory of liability promissory
estoppel (which does not require a contract)- Is
Ps action for promissory estoppel time barred?
14
As long as a plaintiff adheres to a legal duty
breached or an injury originally declared on, an
alteration of the modes in which defendant has
breached the legal duty or caused the injury is
not an introduction of a new cause of action.
15
- P sues D for negligent manufacturing because
the product he bought blew up in his face- After
the statute of limitations ran, he amended his
complaint to allege negligent hiring of workers
in particular the hiring of an employee with a
criminal record for maliciously putting bombs in
products
16
- P sues D for battery within the statute of
limitations- After the statute of limitations
has run, he find out that X is the one who
committed the battery- P amends the complaint to
name X and serves X- relation back?
17
- P sues an individual doing business under the
name of "Malibou Dude Ranch," - after the
limitations period had run P discovered that the
owner of the business was "Malibou Dude Ranch,
Inc.," a corporation, and that the individual was
merely the corporation's agent, who was competent
to receive service on behalf of the corporation-
P amends the complaint to name the right
defendant and serves the individual again-
relation back?
18
preclusive effect(res judicata)
19
claim preclusion
20
P sues D in California state court for negligence
in connection with a car accident.P loses the
jury finds that D was not negligent. Judgment for
D.P sues D in California state court for
negligence in connection with the same car
accident, hoping the jury will get things right
this time.
21
P sues D in California state court for negligence
in connection with a car accident.P wins the
jury finds that D was negligent and awards P
100,000.100,000 in Ds bank account is
attached by the court and given to P.D sues P in
California state court to get the 100,000
wrongfully taken from him.
22
P sues D in California state court for negligence
in connection with a car accident. P asks for
100,000 in personal injuries.P wins the jury
finds that D was negligent and awards P
100,000.100,000 in Ds bank account is
attached by the court and given to P.P then sues
D in California state court for negligence in
connection with the same car accident, asking for
compensation for property damages he sustained.
23
 P sues D in California state court for breach of
a contract to build D a house. P built the house
but D wont pay.P loses the jury finds that
there was no consideration and so no contract.
Judgment for D.P then sues D in California state
court for quantum meruit that is, for the fair
market value of the work he performed.
24
P sues D for negligence in federal court
concerning an accident in which P, D, and X were
all involved.Judgment for D.P then sues X for
negligence in connection with the same
accident.Claim precluded?
25
there must be a final judgment
26
- P sues D concerning personal injuries in
connection with a car accident- P loses,
appeals- While actions is on appeal, P sues D
concerning property damage in connection with
accident
27
- Example P sues D for fraud- P loses- Next day
P discovered that D fabricated evidence- P sues
D again for fraud- what result?
28
the judgment must bevalid
29
P sues D in federal court in NY.There is no PJ
over D but no one notices this fact.Judgment for
P.P then brings a separate suit in state court
in Cal. to enforce the judgment.Can D challenge
the earlier judgment on the grounds that there
was no PJ?
30
P sues D in federal court.There is no SMJ, but
no one notices this fact. D gets a judgment.P
then tries to sue D again concerning the same
event on the ground that the earlier judgment is
invalid due to lack of SMJ.What result?
31
P sues D in federal court in connection with an
accident. There is no SMJ.D defaults.P then
tries to D on the judgment in state court.Can D
challenge the judgment as invalid?
32
the judgment must beon the merits
33
- P sues D for intentional infliction of
emotional distress- D gets the action dismissed
for failure to state a claim (P did not allege
requisite intent)- P then sues D for negligent
infliction of emotional distress
34
If a final valid judgment on the merits thenIf
judgment is for P, Ps claim is merged in the
judgment (no new causes of action about the
transaction allowed)If judgment is for D, Ps
claim is extinguished (no new causes of action
about the transaction allowed)
35
- P sues D for breaching a contract requiring D
to give P coal every winter- In the suit D
challenges the validity of the contract - The
court determines the contract to be validP wins
damages from D- The next winter, D breaches
again- P once again sues D for breach- Is P
claim precluded?- D once again challenges the
validity of the contract- Anything P can do?
36
issue preclusion