Mon., Oct. 28

amendment

relation back

(c) Relation Back of Amendments. (1) When an Amendment Relates Back (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…

Blair v. Durham (6th Cir. 1943)

“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”

  - 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 P’s action for promissory estoppel time barred?

“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.”

- 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

counterclaims

13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim. (1) In General 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim.     (1) In General.  A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that — at the time of its service — the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:         (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and         (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.     (2) Exceptions.  The pleader need not state the claim if:         (A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or         (B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.

Assume NY does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule Assume NY does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule. •    P sues D in NY state court for negligence concerning a car accident. Judgment for P. •    D subsequently sues P in federal court for negligence concerning the same accident

Assume NY does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule Assume NY does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule. •    P sues D in federal court for negligence concerning a car accident. Judgment for P. •    D subsequently sues P in NY state court for negligence concerning the same accident

Art IV, § 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 1738. - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit ... The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

- P sues D in state court for battery - P sues D in state court for battery. - While that action is proceeding D sues P in federal court for D's damages from the same brawl. - Is P required to bring his battery action in the federal court as a compulsory counterclaim to D's federal suit against P?

P sues D in California state court for breach of a contract to pay for securities - D fails to join an action against P for violation of federal securities law in connection with the sale - California has a compulsory counterclaim rule. - Subsequently D brings an action in federal court in California against P for violations of federal securities law - P claims the action is barred under California's compulsory counterclaim rule - What result?

- Officer P sues arrestee D in California state court for battery in connections with P's arrest of D. - California has a compulsory counterclaim rule. - Must D join in his answer his federal civil rights action against P concerning P's actions in the arrest? - If D brings the counterclaim, may P remove? - If D brings the counterclaim, may D remove?

Officer X knows that he is likely to be sued under federal civil rights law by Y, someone he arrested. He feels that a state court would be more favorable to him than a federal court. How might X use the compulsory counterclaim rule (assuming it applies in state court) to ensure a state court forum for Y’s federal civil rights action?

P sues D in federal court concerning negligence •    D makes pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim •    D is granted motion •    Subsequently D sues P in federal court concerning negligence in connection with the same accident •    P asserts defense that D is precluded from bringing action because it was a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier suit •    Barred?

Williams v Robinson (D.D.C 1940)

“The words ‘transaction’ and ‘occurrence’ probably mean, whatever may be done by one person which affects another's rights and out of which a cause of action may arise.”

(b) Permissive Counterclaim (b) Permissive Counterclaim.  A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.