Coons, et al v. A.F. Chapman Corp., et al

Filing 920100910

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = '                   A.F. Chapman was dismissed from the case by stipulation\
of the parties. By the parties\' consent, the trial was held before\
a magistrate judge.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = '                   As noted, Industrial Knife and Heritage Knife filed a\
motion to dismiss well after the deadline for filing dispositive\
pre-trial motions had passed.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = '                   At the time of trial, a Rule 50(b) motion had to be filed \
"[n]o later than 10 days after the entry of judgment," which was\
the same as the period for filing a Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed. R.\
Civ. P. 50(b) (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (2007). The time\
period was recently extended to twenty-eight days for both rules. \
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (2010).\
'

var WPFootnote4 = '                   "Under the doctrine of relation back, an amended\
complaint can be treated, for purposes of the statute of\
limitations, as having been filed on the date of the original\
complaint." Pessotti, 946 F.2d at 975.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = '                   The subdivisions of Rule 15(c) were renumbered in 2007\
but no substantive changes were made. References in this opinion\
are to the current numbering scheme.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = '                   Coons also argued that Industrial Knife waived the\
statute of limitations defense by not opposing his motion to amend\
the complaint. As we have already said, the defense was properly\
preserved by being asserted in Industrial Knife\'s answer.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = '                   Rule 15(c)(1)(C) provides that the newly added party must\
have received notice "within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for\
serving the summons and complaint." Rule 4(m) provides:\
\
              If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the\
complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own\
after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the action\
without prejudice against that defendant or order that\
service be made within a specified time. But if the\
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court\
must extend the time for service for an appropriate\
period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service\
in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).\
'

var WPFootnote8 = '                   We do note that several statements in the district\
court\'s opinion might no longer reflect the law in light of the\
Supreme Court\'s intervening decision in Krupski v. Costa Crociere\
S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485, 2493-96 (2010), which clarified the\
"mistake concerning the proper party\'s identity" prong of the\
federal relation back test. Because the notice issue disposes of\
the federal relation back argument, it is unnecessary to consider\
whether the district court\'s analysis of the "mistake concerning\
the proper party\'s identity" prong was correct in light of the\
Krupski decision.\
'

var WPFootnote9 = '                   The district court specifically noted this complexity as\
a reason for not discussing the state law issue sua sponte.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "