Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Browse related cases: U.S. Supreme Court (78) · Pleading Standards (23) · Landmark Decisions (90)

What Happened

Wanda Krupski tripped over a cable and fractured her femur aboard a cruise ship. Her ticket named “Costa Crociere S.p.A.” as the carrier and said any suit had to be filed within one year. Her lawyer sued “Costa Cruise Lines N.V.,” the company’s North American sales agent, whose name appeared on the ticket’s letterhead and website.

Costa Cruise Lines answered and pointed out three times that Costa Crociere was the proper defendant. After the one-year period ran, Krupski amended her complaint to name Costa Crociere. The same lawyers represented both companies, and Costa Crociere received the amended complaint within the Rule 4(m) service period.

The district court dismissed. It held that the amendment did not relate back because Krupski knew or should have known the correct defendant before the deadline. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, adding that her delay in amending also weighed against her.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed unanimously.

Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) asks whether the new defendant “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” The Court held that this question is about the defendant’s knowledge, not the plaintiff’s. The lower courts had asked the wrong question.

A plaintiff’s knowledge matters only to the extent it bears on what the defendant reasonably understood. If a plaintiff knew about two parties and deliberately chose to sue one and not the other, that is a choice, not a mistake. But choosing the wrong one of two similarly named, related companies because of a misunderstanding about which one did what is a mistake in the ordinary sense, even if the plaintiff had information that could have cleared it up.

The Court also held that a plaintiff’s delay in amending is not a factor under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). The rule sets its own time limit: notice within the Rule 4(m) period. Delay may matter under Rule 15(a), which governs whether leave to amend should be granted at all, but not under the relation-back rule.

What It Means in Practice

Krupski makes relation back easier when you sued the wrong one of two related entities, or misnamed a defendant who knew all along that you meant them. The question is whether the right defendant knew or should have known, within 90 days of filing, that it was the intended target.

The case does not solve the John Doe problem. Most circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, hold that not knowing an officer’s name at all is a lack of knowledge, not a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” Substituting a real name for “John Doe” after the limitations period usually does not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). Other routes may still work. See relation back.

How You Can Use It

• Wrong entity, right target. If you sued the police department instead of the city, or one county entity instead of another, and the right defendant received notice within 90 days, cite Krupski. The test is the defendant’s knowledge.
• Misnamed officer. If you named “Officer J. Smith” and the officer’s name is “J. Smyth,” and the officer or the city attorney received the complaint, the officer knew or should have known the suit was meant for them.
• Answer the delay argument. If the defense argues you waited too long to fix the name, cite Krupski for the rule that delay is irrelevant under Rule 15(c)(1)(C).
• Key quote: “[R]elation 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.” 560 U.S. at 541. And: “Information in the plaintiff’s possession is relevant only if it bears on the defendant’s understanding of whether the plaintiff made a mistake regarding the proper party’s identity.” Id. at 548.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• Deliberate choice. If the record shows you knew who the right defendant was and chose not to sue them, that is not a mistake. The defense will point to anything showing you knew.
• No notice within 90 days. If the new defendant had no notice of the suit within the Rule 4(m) period, relation back fails regardless of what anyone knew.
• John Doe substitution. Expect the defense to argue that a Doe placeholder is not a mistake. In the Fifth Circuit, that argument usually wins under Rule 15(c)(1)(C).

How to counter: Identify defendants before you file when you can. If you cannot, plead the facts showing the new defendant’s notice and understanding, and research whether your state’s relation-back or tolling rules offer a second route under Rule 15(c)(1)(A).