Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Case Study

Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Case Study

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
POURYA SHAHMALEKI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. ________ ) KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Defendant. )
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND
Defendant submits the following Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint. I. INTRODUCTION
This Court should deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend because the statute of limitations has ran on his claims and the amendment does not relate back to the original complaint under 15(c). Plaintiff, Pourya Shahmaleki, filed a complaint against Kansas State University under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2015, a few days before the statute of limitations ran out. After the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...Spicer v. New Image Int'l, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1233 (D. Kan. 2006). The court should distinguish between true mistakes in identity and tactical mistakes concerning who to sue. Bloesser v. Office Depot, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 168, 171 (D. Kan. 1994). If a plaintiff is aware of the identity and involvement of other actors, but chooses not to include them in the original complaint then a mistake likely has not been made. McGregor v. Snyder, 427 F. App'x 629, 632 (10th Cir. 2011). The nature of the complaint also matters. If a complaint shows a clear intent to include a party, but just fails to include the name of the actor then a mistake likely occurred. Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir. 2014). The original complaint can serve as evidence for whether the defendants should have known that a mistake of identity was made. Id. For example in Kruspki, a mistake was present because the plaintiff made a mistake in naming the defendant, but otherwise made it clear who the defendant was and so the Court found it reasonable that the Defendant would know that it was intended party. Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538, 548–49 (2010). The Court determined this was a valid mistake because of the clarity of the complaint and the fact it was it was a clear case of misidentification.

... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...