Employee's complaint doesn't relate back to predecessor company.

Byline: David Ziemer

An employee's amended complaint against his employer does not "relate back" to the original complaint against his employer's successor corporation. In an opinion issued on Nov. 9, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed several other important civil procedure issues. Merrill Hall, a railroad worker, was injured on the job, and brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which makes railroad employers liable to their employees for work-related injuries. At the time of injury, Hall was employed by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). Later, Conrail transferred many of its assets and liabilities to Norfolk Southern Railway Company. However, the sale, approved by the Surface Transpor-tation Board (STB), provided that Conrail remained liable for FELA complaints arising prior to the sale. Three days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, Hall filed suit, incorrectly naming Norfolk Southern as the defendant. Norfolk Southern moved to dismiss, and Hall responded by moving to amend his complaint to add Conrail as a defendant. By then, however, the statute of limitations had run. The magistrate judge denied the motion, and the district court, reviewing for clear error, affirmed. The court held that Hall's misunderstanding regarding which railroad was liable for his injuries was not a "mistake concerning the identity of the proper party" that would allow relation back under FRCP 15(c)(3). The court then applied the exemption in 49 U.S.C. 11321 to defeat any successor liability on the part of Norfolk Southern, and entered judgment for Norfolk Southern. Hall appealed, but the Seventh Circuit also affirmed, in an opinion by Judge Diane S. Sykes.

Dispositive Motions The court first held that the district court had applied the correct standard of review to the magistrate's order denying the motion to amend the complaint. Pursuant to FRCP 72, when parties object to a magistrate judge's order, the district court judge is to review nondispositive motions for clear error, and dispositive rulings de novo. A number of district courts have held that the denial of a motion to amend a pleading is dispositive, and thus, subject to de novo review. The court disagreed, finding this interpretation incompatible with both Seventh Circuit authority, and the magistrate judge's statute, 28 U.S.C. 636. As the court previously held in Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co., 185 F.3d 657, 660 (7th Cir. 1999), the...