Jennifer Rae Heglund, et vir v. City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, et al.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) permits an amended complaint to relate back, for statute-of-limitation purposes, when the amendment corrects a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” In Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010), this Court defined mistake to include “inadequate knowledge” and held that relation back under Rule 15(c) depends on “what the prospective defendant knew or should have known during the Rule 4(m) period, not what the plaintiff knew or should have known at the time of filing her original complaint.” Notwithstanding Krupski, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals construes the word “mistake” in Rule 15(c) to exclude a plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the name of the individual defendant, even when the defendant had notice of the claim. The Circuit Courts of Appeal are divided on the question of whether the naming of a John Doe defendant is a “mistake” within the meaning of the rule when the defendant had notice. The question presented is: Is the Eighth Circuit’s construction of Rule 15(c)(1)(C), which precludes relation back of a John Doe claim even when the defendant had prior notice, contrary to Krupski and does it undermine the purpose of the rule?