477 U.S. 21 (1986)
The three petitioners instituted this diversity litigation on May 9, 1983, by filing their respective complaints in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Each complaint alleged that the plaintiff was libeled in a cover story entitled “The Charges Against Reagan’s Labor Secretary,” which appeared in the May 31, 1982, issue of Fortune magazine.1 The caption of each complaint named “Fortune,” without embellishment, as the defendant, and described Fortune as “a foreign corporation having its principal offices at Time and Life Building, Sixth Avenue and 50th Street, New York, New York 10020.”2
Fortune is only a trademark and the name of an internal division of Time, Incorporated, a New York corporation.3 On May 20, petitioners’ counsel mailed the complaints to Time’s registered agent in New Jersey. They were received on May 23. The agent refused service because Time was not named as a defendant.4
On July 18, 1983, each petitioner amended his complaint to name as the captioned defendant “Fortune, also known as Time, Incorporated,” and, in the body of the complaint, to refer to “Fortune, also known as Time, Incorporated,” as a New York corporation with a specified registered New Jersey agent. The amended complaints were served on Time by certified mail on July 21.5
The District Court granted Time's motions to dismiss the amended complaints. It ruled that the complaints as amended adequately named Time as a defendant.6
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the court denied by letter opinion filed January 12, 1984.7 On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the three actions were consolidated, and that court affirmed the orders of the District Court in 750 F. 2d 15 (1984).8 The Court of Appeals ruled that the New Jersey statute of limitations ran “on May 19, 1983, at the latest,” for a “substantial distribution” of the issue of May 31, 1982, had “occurred on May 19, 1982, at the latest.”9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of an apparent conflict among the Courts of Appeals.10
Whether an amendment to a complaint changing the name of the defendant relates back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the intended defendant did not receive notice within the period provided by law for commencing the action?11
Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits relation back of an amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted. This permission exists only when four requirements are met. The basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading. The party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense. That party must or should have known that but for a mistake concerning identity the action would have been brought against it. The second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the defendant.12
No. The original complaints filed on May 9, 1983 named only Fortune as defendant and described it as a foreign corporation with offices at the Time and Life Building, yet Time received its first intimation of the suits only after May 19, 1983 when the statute of limitations had already run at the latest.13 The registered agent received the complaints on May 23 but refused service because Time was not named, the amendment adding Time occurred on July 18, and service of the amended complaints took place on July 21.14 Because Time obtained neither the required notice nor the requisite knowledge within the one-year New Jersey limitations period, the second, third, and fourth elements of Rule 15(c) remain unsatisfied.15
The amendment does not relate back, and the complaints against Time are time-barred.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens dissented from the majority's application of Rule 15(c).17 He argued that the original complaints already supplied adequate notice to Time.18 The agent's contemporaneous letter demonstrated that the suits were understood to target Time as publisher of Fortune.19
The technical correction from Fortune to Fortune also known as Time Incorporated did not change the party against whom the claims were asserted.20 The Rule's deadline for notice should embrace both the filing and service components when no prejudice results to the defendant.21
Whether the original complaints sufficiently identified Time, Incorporated as the defendant so that attempted service after the limitations period was effective?22
No. The captions named only Fortune without embellishment, the body described Fortune as a foreign corporation located at the Time and Life Building, and the registered agent expressly refused service on the ground that Time was not named as defendant.25 No complaint against Time itself was filed on or before May 19, 1983, and the attempted service after that date therefore could not be effective against the proper corporate defendant.26
The original complaints did not sufficiently identify Time, Incorporated, and post-limitations service was ineffective.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens maintained that the description in paragraph 2 of the complaints supplied fair notice to the corporate publisher. The agent's letter on the day of receipt explicitly acknowledged that the papers were for Time, Incorporated as publisher of Fortune, confirming that the intended defendant understood the suits targeted it.28 This identification satisfied any standard of fair notice because the difference between the original and amended captions was no more significant than a minor misspelling or an abbreviation of the corporate name.29
Time would have received identical notice either way, and the amendment therefore did not bring in a new party within the meaning of Rule 15(c).30 The majority's strict reading produces arbitrary results at odds with the Rule's purpose of permitting harmless corrections after the limitations period has run.31