Joseph v. Elan Motorsports Technologies Racing Corp.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff's motion to amend complaint by substituting corporate affiliate of named defendant even though substitution motion was filed after expiration of statute of limitations period. While Dist. Ct. found that proposed amendment could not relate back to date of original complaint because plaintiff had failed to identify proper defendant prior to expiration of statute of limitations, only relevant inquiry under Krupski, 130 SCt 2485, is whether new defendant should have known that plaintiff, had it not been mistaken, would have sued it instead of suing named defendant, and whether delay in plaintiff's discovering mistake impaired new defendant's ability to defend itself. In instant case, new defendant was aware of lawsuit where original and new defendants shared corporate offices and was aware that it should have been named in original lawsuit because of plaintiff's employment relationship to new defendant. Fact that motion to amend was filed six years after original complaint did not require different result where new defendant was aware of mistake shortly after original complaint was filed, but did nothing to alert plaintiff of mistake.