A traveler sues a bus company for negligence in federal court, naming the bus driver as defendant. It later turns out the driver’s twin sister was driving, and service was timely on the twin sister. The original deadline for service has passed, and the statute of limitations has run. The traveler seeks to amend to substitute the twin sister as the defendant. Should the court grant the amendment?

• A. Yes, because the court improperly granted leave to amend after the statute of limitations had run.
• B. Yes, because the statute of limitations is a defense that is apparent on the face of the complaint.
• C. No, because the amended complaint relates back to the date the original complaint was filed.
• D. No, because the original defendant’s name was a misnomer and changing it is permitted as a matter of course.

Answer: (C)

The main concept is relation back of an amendment under Rule 15. When a plaintiff sues the wrong person but the claim arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, the plaintiff may substitute the correct party and have the amendment relate back to the original filing date if the new party received notice of the action (or should have) and the change would not prejudice the other party.

Here, the negligent act happened in the same incident, and the actual driver (the twin sister) was timely served, so she had notice. Although the person named in the original complaint was the bus driver, substituting the twin sister for the defendant is allowed if the claim against her arises out of the same occurrence and she had notice. Because the amendment relates back to the time the original complaint was filed, the statute of limitations would not bar the claim against the twin sister. Thus the amendment should be granted.