/FED-ruhl ROOL of SIV-il pruh-SEE-jur FIF-teen/·rule
Also known as:FRCP 15 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 · Rule 15
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule that permits a party to amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service when no responsive pleading is required. The rule also authorizes relation back of an amendment that changes or adds a party when the claim arises from the same conduct or occurrence and the new party received timely notice within the period for service under Rule 4(m) such that it will not be prejudiced and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning identity.
Sources & Authorities· 7 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Federal Rules
Casebooks
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Adding Corporate Defendant After Limitations Period
Felix Franco sued Fairfield Bank for breach of a loan agreement. After the limitations period expired, Franco learned that Foster Forge was the actual lender and moved to amend the complaint to add Foster Forge as a defendant. Foster Forge had received notice of the suit through its shared counsel within the Rule 4(m) period and had coordinated document preservation, confirming it knew the suit targeted it but for the mistaken identity. The amendment relates back, allowing the claim against Foster Forge to proceed on the original filing date.
Amending Complaint Before Responsive Pleading
Farah Fox filed a complaint against Fulton Shipping alleging breach of a shipping contract. Before Fulton Shipping filed an answer or any Rule 12 motion, Fox obtained new documents showing an additional breach and filed an amended complaint adding the claim. Because the amendment occurred within twenty-one days of service and no responsive pleading had been filed, Fox exercised the right to amend as a matter of course without seeking consent or leave.
Correcting Pleading Deficiencies Early
Forrest Falconer sued Flora Ford for negligence after a car accident. The initial complaint contained vague allegations that might fail under pleading standards. Within twenty-one days of service and before any answer, Falconer filed an amended complaint supplying specific facts about the collision and Ford's conduct. The amendment as of right allowed the case to proceed on a clarified theory without court intervention.
Conley v. Gibson355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)
Amending to Add Class Allegations
Finn Fletcher filed an individual securities claim against Falcon Dynamics. After the limitations period for other investors expired, Fletcher moved to amend to assert class claims arising from the same misleading statements. The amendment relates back because it rests on the identical conduct alleged in the original pleading, preserving timeliness for the class members.
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin417 U.S. 156, 171 (1974)
Amending to Clarify Causation Theory
Faye Fuller sued Foster Forge alleging age discrimination. After discovery revealed mixed motives, Fuller amended the complaint within the permitted period to add a claim under a different statutory theory based on the same employment decisions. The amendment as of right allowed the new theory to proceed without requiring leave of court.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.557 U.S. 167, 175 n.2 (2009)
Amending Jurisdictional Allegations
Fairfield Bank sued Fulton Shipping in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The complaint contained incomplete allegations of citizenship. Within twenty-one days of service, the bank filed an amended complaint supplying the missing jurisdictional facts. The amendment as of right corrected the pleading without affecting the court's authority over the dispute.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When may a party amend its complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15?+
A party may amend once as a matter of course no later than twenty-one days after serving the pleading when no responsive pleading is required. The period is measured from service of the original complaint, not from discovery of new facts or removal to federal court. If a responsive pleading has been served, the period may instead run from that service under the alternative timing provision.
Supporting sources
Does removal to federal court reset the amendment-as-of-right period?+
Removal does not reset the period. The twenty-one-day clock under Rule 15(a)(1)(A) begins upon service of the complaint regardless of later removal. When an answer was filed in state court before removal, the court must apply the earlier of the two possible deadlines, and an amendment filed after the complaint-service deadline expires requires leave or consent.
Supporting sources
What must a plaintiff show for an amendment adding a defendant to relate back?+
The amendment must assert a claim arising from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading. Within the Rule 4(m) service period the new defendant must have received notice of the action that prevents prejudice in defending on the merits and must have known or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.
Supporting sources
May a defendant waive a defense by failing to include it in a Rule 12 motion or an amendment as of right?+
Certain defenses listed in Rule 12(b)(2) through (5) are waived if omitted from the first Rule 12 motion or from a responsive pleading or amendment permitted as a matter of course. Other defenses, such as failure to state a claim, are not waived by joinder or omission at that stage and may be raised later.
Supporting sources
Rule
56 (motion for summary judgment);
Rule 15
(right to amend).
.2; Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters , 561 U. S. 287, 306 (2010). For the reasons stated, the judgment of the North Carolina Court of Appeals is Reversed. Footnotes [^maj-1]:…
,
Federal
Rule
s of
Civil
Procedure
. [^maj-9]: This approach to the question of standing was adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Citizens Committee for the Hudson…
.2. [^maj-3]: To take a clear example, if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover…
Civil ProcedurePretrial procedures · Pleadings and amended and supplemental pleadingsUBEFoundational