Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: Relation Back

Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations – Pleadings – Amendment – Relation Back – Breach of Contract (access required)

Kearney v. Barker Plaintiff made it clear that his original complaint was intended to sue only the father, Phillip Junior Barker, and not the son, Phillip Renard Barker. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the son as a defendant.

Read More »

Corporate – Merger – Civil Practice – Pleadings Amendment – Relation Back – Real Party in Interest – Intellectual Property – Patent Application – Tort/Negligence – Attorneys – Legal Malpractice (access required)

Revolutionary Concepts, Inc. v. Clements Walker PLLC Although an inventor had assigned his patent rights to a Nevada corporation, a North Carolina corporation hired the defendant-law firm to apply for the patents. The Nevada corporation filed this action to assert its rights as assignee. Subsequently, the two corporations merged, with the Nevada corporation being the surviving entity. The Nevada corporation did not file a professional negligence action within the statute of limitations, and an amendment to its pleadings now would not relate back to the filing of this action.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Pleadings – Amendment – Relation Back – Complaint Verification – Rule 11 – First Impression (access required)

Estate of Livesay v. Livesay Forty-two days after the complaint and summonses had been issued - but before any responsive pleadings had been filed - plaintiff’s counsel discovered that the complaint had not been signed or verified. Counsel quickly filed an amended, signed complaint. Pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 11 and 15, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

Read More »

Labor & Employment – Breach of Contract – Damages – Salary – Civil Practice – Pleadings – Supplementation – Relation Back (access required)

Panos v. Timco Engine Center, Inc. The parties’ employment contract provided that, if defendant fired plaintiff without cause, defendant would be required to pay plaintiff’s salary for a year following his termination. When plaintiff filed his complaint, only three months had passed. Even though more than three years had elapsed when plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to seek the other nine months’ worth of salary, the amendment related back under N.C. R. Civ. P. 15.

Read More »