Also known as: FRCP 15 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 · Rule 15 · amended pleadings rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule governing amendments and supplemental pleadings in civil actions. The rule permits a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service of the original pleading or within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or qualifying motion, whichever applies. It also addresses relation back of amendments that change parties or add claims arising from the same conduct.
Forrest Falconer sued a supplier under the wrong corporate name. After the Rule 4(m) period, he amended to name the correct entity. The new defendant had received notice of the suit and knew it was the intended target, so the amendment related back.
Fumiko Fujimoto answered a complaint without raising lack of personal jurisdiction. She later sought to amend the answer within the permitted window to add the defense. The amendment preserved the objection because it qualified as an amendment as of course.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Francesca Fiore filed a complaint alleging breach of contract. Within twenty-one days after service and before any answer, she filed an amended complaint correcting dates and adding supporting facts from the same transaction. The amendment proceeded as of right.
Felix Franco filed a class action complaint. Twenty days after service and before any responsive pleading, he filed an amended complaint expanding the class period based on the same conduct. The amendment was permitted without court leave.
Farid Farahani sued his employer for discrimination. Within the amendment window he filed an amended complaint adding a retaliation claim arising from the same employment events. The court treated the filing as timely under the rule.
Fiona Foster sued a federal agency. After receiving internal documents she filed an amended complaint within twenty-one days of service adding a new theory based on the same facts. The amendment qualified as a matter of course.
A party may amend once as a matter of course no later than twenty-one days after serving the pleading or, if a responsive pleading is required, no later than twenty-one days after service of the responsive pleading or a qualifying motion, whichever is earlier.
No. Rule 15(a)(1) permits one amendment as of right within the specified periods even when the amendment adds a new claim arising from the same conduct.
The second amendment requires either written consent of the opposing party or leave of court, which the court should freely give when justice so requires.
Removal does not reset the periods. The twenty-one-day clock runs from service of the complaint or from service of a responsive pleading or motion, and the earlier deadline controls.
Relation back occurs if the claim arises from the same conduct and the new defendant received notice within the Rule 4(m) period and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake in identity.
…need to amend the complaint and without the constraints which might exist if the complaint had earlier been amended pursuant to Rule 15 to include only the subclass. I agree with Professor Chafee that a class action serves not only the convenience of the parties but also prompt, efficient judicial administration.[^maj-23]…