Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1420 Joseph v. Elan Motorsports Technologies Racing Corp.

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 14, 2011//

10-1420 Joseph v. Elan Motorsports Technologies Racing Corp.

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 14, 2011//

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Amended complaints; relation-back doctrine

Where a corporation knew that the plaintiff meant to sue it rather than a similarly named sister corporation, the amended complaint naming it as defendant relates back to the original complaint.

“Elan Inc. knew that Wardrop meant to sue it rather than Elan Corp. He meant to sue the party to the employment contract with him and Elan Inc. was that party. The two corporations are pieces of a dizzying array of corporate entities all of which, it seems—or at least Elan Corp. and Elan Inc.—are managed out of the same office. Elan Inc. is registered in Delaware and has an address and a registered agent in Delaware, as required of a Delaware corporation. But its operations are conducted from the same office in Georgia that houses Elan Corp. Wardrop traveled to that office many times during and in relation to the performance of his contract. His complaint was served on the employee of still another affiliate—but, as it happened, that was the person who ‘supervised, directed, and monitored’ Wardrop’s services under his contract with Elan Inc. The person was a de facto employee of Elan Inc. when supervising Wardrop’s performance of his contract with that firm. But however we characterize his legal relation to Elan Inc., he had to know, as soon as he received the complaint, that Wardrop meant to sue Elan Inc. rather than Elan Corp.—knew that had it not been for the plaintiff’s error, to which the confusing similarity of the corporate names doubtless contributed, Elan Inc. would have been named as the defendant. See United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int’l Construction, Inc., supra, 608 F.3d at 883-84; Singletary v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 266 F.3d 186, 195-98 (3d Cir. 2001); Datskow v. Teledyne, Inc., 899 F.2d 1298, 1301-02 (2d Cir. 1990); 16 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1499, pp. 146-51 (2d ed. 1996). His knowledge was Elan Inc.’s knowledge because he was, as we said, supervising that firm’s contract with Wardrop.”

Reversed and Remanded.

10-1420 Joseph v. Elan Motorsports Technologies Racing Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, McKinney, J., Posner, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests