Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Facts

On February 21, 2007, Wanda Krupski tripped over a cable and fractured her femur on the cruise ship Costa Magica. Her passenger ticket named the carrier as Costa Crociere S.p.A., an Italian corporation, and required suit within one year of the injury. It also described Costa Cruise Lines N.V. as the carrier's sales and marketing agent and the issuer of the ticket, and the front of the ticket listed Costa Cruise Lines' Florida address. On July 2, 2007, Krupski's lawyer notified Costa Cruise Lines of her claims. On February 1, 2008, three weeks before the limitations period expired, Krupski sued Costa Cruise in federal court in Florida. Her complaint alleged that Costa Cruise owned and operated the ship. After the period expired, Costa Cruise brought Costa Crociere to her attention three times: its answer said Costa Crociere was the actual carrier, its corporate disclosure statement listed Costa Crociere as an interested party, and its summary judgment motion of May 6, 2008, again named Costa Crociere as the proper defendant. On June 13, 2008, Krupski responded to that motion and moved to add Costa Crociere as a defendant. She said that her travel documents, Costa Cruise's Web site and the Florida Department of State's Web site all pointed to Costa Cruise. She filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2008, and served Costa Crociere on August 21, 2008. Costa Cruise was then dismissed by stipulation.

Issues

1. Under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii), does relation back turn on what the plaintiff knew or should have known about the proper party's identity, or on what the party to be added knew or should have known?
2. May a court deny relation back of an amended complaint because the plaintiff was slow to seek leave to amend or to file the amended complaint?

Holding

Relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party's knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend. Costa Crociere should have known it was left out of the original complaint only because of a mistake, so the courts below erred in denying relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii).