Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — amended complaints — relation back doctrine

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 23, 2014//

Civil Procedure — amended complaints — relation back doctrine

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 23, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — amended complaints — relation back doctrine

Patrick Finnegan, pro se, appeals from an order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Joe Parisi and Scott McDonnell (collectively, Parisi). Finnegan argues that: (1) the circuit court erred in granting Parisi’s motion to dismiss because Finnegan’s failure to name the proper party, Dane County, was a mistake that did not prejudice Dane County; and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to amend his summons and complaint a second time because the second amended complaint was timely under the relation back doctrine. I conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting Parisi’s motion to dismiss and in denying Finnegan’s motion to amend, and, therefore, I affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2014AP907 Finnegan v. Parisi et al.

Dist IV, Dane County, Albert, J., Kloppenburg, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Finnegan, Patrick, pro se; For Respondent: Gault, David R., Madison

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests