Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.

(2010)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 130 S. Ct. 2485

tl;dr:

Amendments relating back depend solely on the amended party's knowledge as to notice of the possibility of being served, not on the amending party's knowledge.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the case of Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. (2010), the US Supreme Court dealt with the issue of relation back of amendments in federal civil suits. Wanda Krupski, the plaintiff, sought compensation for injuries she sustained on a cruise ship operated by Costa Crociere, the defendant. However, Krupski initially sued Costa Cruise Lines within the required one-year period. Krupski eventually amended her complaint to add Costa Crociere, under Rule 15 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after the one-year period elapsed.

The district court allowed the amendment but Costa Crociere claimed Krupski's amended complaint didn't relate back to her original complaint under Rule 15©. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that Krupski's decision to sue Costa Cruise was a deliberate choice, not a mistake.

The Supreme Court reversed this judgment, ruling that Krupski's amended complaint did relate back under Rule 15© because Costa Crociere should have known they would be named as a defendant. The Court emphasized that relation back depends on what the newly named party knew or should have known and not what the amending party knew. This rule maintains a balance between the parties, avoiding prejudice to defendants and forfeiture for plaintiffs. Lastly, the Court found Krupski made a mistake and Costa Crociere suffered no prejudice because of the delay in amending her complaint. This case highlights the principles and limitations of relation back of amendments in federal courts.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingKrupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. case brief facts & holding

Facts:Krupski was injured 2/21/07 while on board a cruise ship...

Holding:15(c)(1)(C)(ii) is only concerned with what the defendant knew or...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice Sotomayor
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves a passenger who was injured on a Costa Cruise Lines ship. The passenger ticket required that any injured party must provide written notice of the claim with full particulars to the carrier or its authorized agent within 185 days after the date of injury. The ticket also required that any lawsuit must be filed within one year after the date of injury and served upon the carrier within 120 days after filing. The Supreme Court held that 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 its timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading. The District Court and the Eleventh Circuit erred in their interpretation of Rule 15(c)(l)(C)(ii).

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Justice Scalia
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Justice Scalia agrees with the Court's opinion in the legal case, except for its reliance on the Advisory Committee's Notes to interpret Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C). He argues that the Committee's intentions do not impact the meaning of the Rule, and that it is the text of the Rule that governs. Scalia cites Tome v. United States to support his position. However, it should be noted that Scalia's argument differs from the Court's interpretation of the Rule.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.

Chat for Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.
brief-295
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.