“A” brings an action against “B”. The causes of action asserted against “B” are all timely for statute of limitations purposes. Following discovery, “A” learns that “C” played a material role in the facts and...more
Considering the intersection of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and the doctrine of relation back, a California appellate panel found that the doctrine can apply to the statute, opening the door to a subsequent...more
Addressing the application of the relation-back doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit, finding that damages were available because the amended complaint that asserted new patents related...more
The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a complete victory by Safeway Inc. over a certified class of wage-and-hour plaintiffs. Esparza v. Safeway Inc., et al., B287927 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC369766, June 10,...more
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 was amended in 2017 to allow for the addition of a new party after the expiration of the statute of limitations, provided certain conditions are met. This rule change was intended to...more
Earlier this summer, in Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Castlewood Builders LLC, 2018 UT 28, the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the question of whether the plaintiff’s construction defects claims against...more
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against...more
Maybe you have the same nightmare that I do. You have moved to amend your Complaint to add a new defendant. The statute of limitations is about to run, but your motion to amend was made before the end of the limitations...more