{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Marsh v. Coleman company - claim arising out of the same...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Marsh v. Coleman Company 774 f. SUPP. 608 (1991) Fact: Operative Facts: Marsh worked with Coleman company, and was terminated on Jan. 20 th , 1988. He brought up suit on Jan. 19 th , 1990. There was a 2 year statute of limitation. In Nov. of 1990, he wanted to amend his claim. His previous claim was for improper termination, his replacement being younger. His new claim was for fraud by the person who was in charged of the company, assuring that he would still have a job, throughout his career. Plaintiff stated that he would be barred by statute of limitation. Issue: Whether Marsh could amend his complaint to include a new claim, not related to the facts in his original claim. Rule: A amendment can be done after the statue of limitation has passed if it is to add another
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: claim arising out of the same transaction, or change the legal theory, or flesh out the factual details. Rational: There new claim was that Marsh was promised that he would have a job for life, and therefore, he the people who told him so, committed fraud. However, the purpose for this statute of limitation is to provide notice to the defendant that they cannot be sued for a certain thing after a certain amount of time has passed. Holding: A person cannot amend his claim after the statute of limitation has passed, if the claim is not arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or conduct. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online