If you enjoy watching legal dramas or crime shows, you\u2019ve probably heard the phrase \u201cstatute of limitations\u201d come up.\u00a0 But what does this phrase mean?<\/p>\n
From State to State, people and businesses may sue each other for various reasons. State laws also dictate certain \u201cdeadlines\u201d within which different types of lawsuits can be commenced. For example, in Utah, if someone wants to sue a public school for violating their \u201cexpressive rights\u201d under the \u201cCampus Free Expression Act,\u201d they must commence the lawsuit no later than a year after the day they felt their rights were violated. (Utah Code Ann. \u00a7 53B-27-205.)<\/p>\n
The time limit (statute of limitations) is different and specific depending on the type of claim.\u00a0It could be as little as six months, or as long as several years.<\/p>\n
It is also helpful to understand that the person or entity who commences a lawsuit is called a \u201cplaintiff.\u201d A plaintiff commences a lawsuit by filing a \u201cComplaint\u201d with a Court, and the Complaint must contain at least one \u201cclaim\u201d (a.k.a. \u201ccause of action\u201d) against the party they\u2019re suing, which party (person or entity) is called a \u201cdefendant.\u201d<\/p>\n
Statutes of limitations are obviously important to know about when filing a Complaint, since a plaintiff should make sure to file within the correct deadline(s). But sometimes a plaintiff is permitted to correct or amend their Complaint at a later point in time, even after <\/em>the relevant statute of limitations has \u201crun\u201d (i.e., after the deadline has passed). So what happens then?<\/p>\n If a plaintiff is permitted to amend their Complaint after the Statute of Limitations has run, sometimes Utah courts will treat the amendment as if it had been filed on the day the original Complaint was filed, rather than on the date the amendment was actually filed. This is called \u201crelating back.\u201d\u00a0 Whether Utah courts will \u201crelate\u201d an amendment \u201cback\u201d to the date the original Complaint was filed depends on a number of factors.<\/p>\n For example, a Utah court will \u201crelate back\u201d when the amendment involves a claim that resulted from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence referred to in the original Complaint.\u00a0 For example, if a plaintiff files a Complaint against another person with a claim for assault, but later learns that the person\u2019s conduct was actually considered battery, the plaintiff\u2019s Amended Complaint will likely \u201crelate back\u201d to the original filing date, because both the original assault claim and the new battery claim are based on the same incident.<\/p>\n In a 2019 Utah Supreme Court decision, State v. Noor<\/em>, a Utah inmate filed a Complaint claiming that he received \u201cineffective assistance of counsel\u201d at a previous trial in a different case.\u00a0 Later in the case (after the statute of limitations deadline had passed), he amended his Complaint. The amendment still included a claim for \u201cineffective assistance of counsel,\u201d but relied on slightly different reasons than before. Instead of supporting the claim by saying the previous attorney had done A, B, and C during the trial, the plaintiff now focused on how the attorney had done X, Y, and Z at the trial. The defendant argued that the plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit should be dropped because the amendment was filed after the statute of limitations deadline, and shouldn\u2019t \u201crelate back\u201d because it didn\u2019t refer to the same conduct referred to in the original Complaint.<\/p>\n The Utah Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff. It found that even though the amended Complaint talked about different specific conduct exhibited by the previous attorney, it was still essentially talking about the same conduct: the previous attorney\u2019s actions in a specific trial. Therefore, the amended Complaint \u201crelated back\u201d in this particular situation.<\/p>\n An Amended Complaint may also relate back when it includes a new, but now correct, party to the lawsuit. For example, Mary falls while shopping at Neighborhood Grocery Store due to the store\u2019s negligence.\u00a0 She files suit against Neighborhood Grocery shortly before the statute of limitations expires, but later discovers it\u2019s actually owned by National Grocery Chain. She amends her Complaint to remove Neighborhood Grocery as the defendant and replace it with National Grocery Chain.\u00a0 Mary\u2019s amendment will likely relate back as long as National Grocery Chain knew that Mary intended to bring suit against it but was mistaken about the proper party name, and as long as National Grocery Chain will not experience prejudice.<\/p>\n