relation-back doctrine in Illinois

2026App. 3d 710 (1987), were decided prior to our supreme court’s adoption of the “sufficiently-close-relationship test” in Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (2008), which relaxed the standard used to determine whether new claims raised in an amended complaint relate back to claims raised in prior complaints (id. at 352-60). ¶ 49 In Porter, our supreme court explained that “[t]he purpose of the relation-back doctrine of section 2-616(b) is to preserve causes of action against loss by reason of technical default unrelated to the merits” while affording a defendant “a fair opportu

2026App. 3d 710 (1987), were decided prior to our supreme court’s adoption of the “sufficiently-close-relationship test” in Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (2008), which relaxed the standard used to determine whether new claims raised in an amended complaint relate back to claims raised in prior complaints (id. at 352-60). ¶ 49 In Porter, our supreme court explained that “[t]he purpose of the relation-back doctrine of section 2-616(b) is to preserve causes of action against loss by reason of technical default unrelated to the merits” while affording a defendant “a fair opportu

2016The supreme court did not consider the relation back doctrine and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to consider the issue presented here. ¶ 30 Relation Back Doctrine ¶ 31 The relation back statute provides: “The cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in any amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought or right asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed, and if it shall appear from the original and amended pleadings th

2014Under the relation back doctrine, a cause of action set forth in an amended pleading will not be time-barred and will “relate back” to the date of the filing of the original pleading if: (1) the original pleading was timely filed, and (2) the cause of action asserted in the amended pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence as that asserted in the original pleading. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) - 12 - (West 2008); Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266, 270-71 (1986); Avakian v. Chulengarian, 328 Ill.

2015AVI also asserts the relation back doctrine does not apply. ¶ 106 Section 2-616(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a cause of action alleged in an amended complaint, filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations period, will relate back to the filing of the original complaint if two requirements are met: (1) the original pleading was timely filed, and (2) the original and amended pleadings indicate the cause of action asserted in the amended complaint grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original proceeding. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (West 2012); Br

2015AVI also asserts the relation back doctrine does not apply. ¶ 106 Section 2-616(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a cause of action alleged in an amended complaint, filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations period, will relate back to the filing of the original complaint if two requirements are met: (1) the original pleading was timely filed, and (2) the original and amended pleadings indicate the cause of action asserted in the amended complaint grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original proceeding. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (West 2012); Br

2020Specifically, the co-administrators’ July 31, 2013, petition for a citation for the recovery of assets related back to the filing of the original citation for information. ¶ 73 The relation back doctrine is codified in section 2-616(b) of the Code as follows: “The cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in any amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought or right asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed, and if it shall app

2018Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 355 , 882 N.E.2d at 590 ; Boatmen’s National Bank, 167 Ill. 2d at 102 , 656 N.E.2d at 1107 . ¶ 27 The relation-back doctrine focuses on the identity of the transaction or occurrence rather than the identity of the causes of action. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (West 2014); Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 356 , 882 N.E.2d at 590 .

2015See, e.g., Mann v. Thomas Place, L.P., 2012 IL App (1st) 110625, ¶ 17 ; Maggi, 2011 IL App (1st) 091955, ¶ 24 ; Polites v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 361 Ill.

2015See, e.g., Mann v. Thomas Place, L.P., 2012 IL App (1st) 110625, ¶ 17 ; Maggi, 2011 IL App (1st) 091955, ¶ 24 ; Polites v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 361 Ill.

2023Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) asks what the prospective defendant knew or should have known ***, not what the plaintiff knew or should have known at the time of filing her original complaint.” (Emphases in original.) 560 U.S. at 548 . ¶ 48 A classic and straightforward application of the relation-back doctrine is where a plaintiff correctly describes a defendant in a timely filed complaint but mistakenly names the wrong party.

2023Under those circumstances, this court concluded that the real general contractor, having received notice of the suit, was “more than aware that it was the true target of the litigation.” Id. ¶ 38. ¶ 49 The Supreme Court explained in Krupski that the relation-back doctrine can also apply where a plaintiff knew the identity of the putative defendant but was mistaken as to that party’s status or role in the conduct alleged in the complaint. 560 U.S. at 549 .

2018App. 3d 368 , 370, 285 Ill.Dec. 11 , 811 N.E.2d 252 (2004) (the relation-back doctrine applies where there is a misnomer but only applies in cases of mistaken identity under certain circumstances).

2018App. 3d 368 , 370, 285 Ill.Dec. 11 , 811 N.E.2d 252 (2004) (the relation-back doctrine applies where there is a misnomer but only applies in cases of mistaken identity under certain circumstances).

2016App. 3d at 1091 (citing Simmons, 32 Ill. 2d at 494 ). ¶ 53 The above-described principles regarding the relation back doctrine also apply in medical malpractice cases.

2007Consequently, I believe that our supreme court’s holding in Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266 (1986), explaining the rationale behind the relation back doctrine as codified in section 2—616(b) is most instructive: “ ‘[A] defendant has not been prejudiced so long as his attention has been directed, within the time prescribed or limited, to the facts that form the basis of the claim asserted against him.’ ” Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d at 273 , quoting Simmons v. Hendricks, 32 Ill. 2d 489, 495 (1965).

2012It is well settled that ‘[a] suit brought in a name which is not that of a natural person, a corporation or of a partnership is a mere nullity; and, in such a case *** the whole action fails.’ Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak, 11 Ill.

2010It is well settled that “[a] suit brought in a name which is not that of a natural person, a corporation or of a partnership is a mere nullity; and, in such a case *** the whole action fails.” Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak, 11 Ill.

2026That Pavlov was not properly named administrator on the motion of the decedent’s heirs until after the limitations period had run is a technical consideration which, in light of [the relation back doctrine], should not prevent the cause from being decided on its merits in furtherance of justice.” Id. at 579 . - 21 - ¶ 56 More recently, in Mankowski, 2014 IL App (2d) 140154, ¶ 47 , the Second District reached the same conclusion.

2022The trial court denied their motion but certified the question of whether the relation-back doctrine applied when the original complaint was filed by an improper representative and no proper plaintiff was substituted until after the limitations period had expired. ¶ 37 In considering that question, we reviewed several relevant cases, including In re Estate of Mankowski, 2014 IL App (2d) 140154, ¶ 47 , in which this court held that, although the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit on behalf of the estate when the suit was filed, her later appointment as special administrator “cured” the pro

2001In Vaughn v. Speaker, 126 Ill. 2d 150 , 533 N.E.2d 885 (1988), our supreme court applied the relation back doctrine set forth in section 2 — 616(d) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 — 616(d) (West 1998)) in the context of an action originally brought against a deceased person.

2001In Vaughn v. Speaker, 126 Ill. 2d 150 , 533 N.E.2d 885 (1988), our supreme court applied the relation back doctrine set forth in section 2 — 616(d) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 — 616(d) (West 1998)) in the context of an action originally brought against a deceased person.

2023For example, although the plaintiff in Maggi v. RAS Development, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 091955,¶ 33 , made it clear in his initial complaint that he intended to sue the owner and general contractor of a building for negligent construction, he named the wrong corporate entity as the general contractor.

2022See Maggi - 14 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220006-U v. RAS Development, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 091955 , ¶ 31.

2014Under the relation back doctrine, a cause of action set forth in an amended pleading will not be time-barred and will “relate back” to the date of the filing of the original pleading if: (1) the original pleading was timely filed, and (2) the cause of action asserted in the amended pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence as that asserted in the original pleading. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) - 12 - (West 2008); Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266, 270-71 (1986); Avakian v. Chulengarian, 328 Ill.

2014Under the relation back doctrine, a cause of action set forth in an amended pleading will not be time-barred and will “relate back” to the date of the filing of the original pleading if: (1) the original pleading was timely filed, and (2) the cause of action asserted in the amended pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence as that - 10 - asserted in the original pleading. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (West 2008); Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266, 270-71 (1986); Avakian v. Chulengarian, 328 Ill.

2001App. 3d at 334 , citing Wolf v. Meister-Neiberg, Inc., 143 Ill. 2d 44, 46 , 570 N.E.2d 327 (1991).

2001App. 3d at 334 , citing Wolf v. Meister-Neiberg, Inc., 143 Ill. 2d 44, 46 , 570 N.E.2d 327 (1991).

2018Relation-Back Doctrine ¶ 65 In contending that the circuit court erred in finding that the 2014 filing was plaintiff's one permitted refiling of the 2010 action under section 13-217, plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in its application of the relation-back rule of section 2-616(b) of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (West 2014). " Section 2-616(b) * * * provides that a cause of action set up in an amended pleading shall not be time-barred if: (1) the original pleading was timely filed and (2) the cause of action at issue grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the o

2018App. 3d 579 , 600, 341 Ill.Dec. 769 , 931 N.E.2d 666 (2009).

2017By contrast, in Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1990), the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a prison officer received constructive notice sufficient for the relation-back doctrine where his supervisors were named in the complaint and he was present during the alleged assault on the plaintiff. ¶ 52 In the case at bar, the record does not provide sufficient information to resolve this factual issue.

2017By contrast, in Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1990), the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a prison officer received constructive notice sufficient for the relation-back doctrine where his supervisors were named in the complaint and he was present during the alleged assault on the plaintiff. ¶ 52 In the case at bar, the record does not provide sufficient information to resolve this factual issue.

2015See, e.g., Mann v. Thomas Place, L.P., 2012 IL App (1st) 110625, ¶ 17 ; Maggi, 2011 IL App (1st) 091955, ¶ 24 ; Polites v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 361 Ill.

2015See, e.g., Mann v. Thomas Place, L.P., 2012 IL App (1st) 110625, ¶ 17 ; Maggi, 2011 IL App (1st) 091955, ¶ 24 ; Polites v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 361 Ill.

2015Kubian, 272 Ill.

2015Id. ¶ 28 In contrast to Kubian is the First District’s holding in Pavlov, 113 Ill.

2014Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343, 355 (2008); Stevanovic v. City of Chicago, 385 Ill.

2010Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343, 355 (2008); Stevanovic v. City of Chicago, 385 Ill.

1999Recently, the court in Cammon v. West Suburban Hospital Medical Center, 301 Ill.App.3d 939 , 235 Ill.Dec. 158 , 704 N.E.2d 731 (1998), a case involving multiple defendants, relied on Wolf in finding the relation-back doctrine applied where an amended complaint alleged West Suburban hospital, through its agents, had failed to achieve adequate hemostasis following surgery on the decedent.

1999App. 3d 939 , 704 N.E.2d 731 (1998), a case involving multiple defendants, relied on Wolf in finding the relation-back doctrine applied where an amended complaint alleged West Suburban hospital, through its agents, had failed to achieve adequate hemostasis following surgery on the decedent.

2026That Pavlov was not properly named administrator on the motion of the decedent’s heirs until after the limitations period had run is a technical consideration which, in light of [the relation back doctrine], should not prevent the cause from being decided on its merits in furtherance of justice.” Id. at 579 . - 21 - ¶ 56 More recently, in Mankowski, 2014 IL App (2d) 140154, ¶ 47 , the Second District reached the same conclusion.

2022The trial court denied their motion but certified the question of whether the relation-back doctrine applied when the original complaint was filed by an improper representative and no proper plaintiff was substituted until after the limitations period had expired. ¶ 37 In considering that question, we reviewed several relevant cases, including In re Estate of Mankowski, 2014 IL App (2d) 140154, ¶ 47 , in which this court held that, although the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit on behalf of the estate when the suit was filed, her later appointment as special administrator “cured” the pro

2000To the extent that the cases cited by the defendants contain language indicating that a complaint filed in the name of a deceased plaintiff is a nullity for purposes of applying the relation back doctrine, we disagree with those *804 cases." Marcus, 224 Ill.App.3d at 469 , 166 Ill.Dec. 736 , 586 N.E.2d 694 .

2000To the extent that the cases cited by the defendants contain language indicating that a complaint filed in the name of a deceased plaintiff is a nullity for purposes of applying the relation back doctrine, we disagree with those *804 cases." Marcus, 224 Ill.App.3d at 469 , 166 Ill.Dec. 736 , 586 N.E.2d 694 .

2026In so holding, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that other cases applying the relation back doctrine under similar circumstances were distinguishable because in those prior cases, “a probate estate already existed at the time the statute of limitations expired.” Id. at 756-57 .

2026The amended complaint relates back to the filing of the timely filed original complaint.” Id. ¶ 63 Accordingly, the relevant case authority clearly demonstrates that the relation back doctrine is applicable even under circumstances where no probate estate has been opened and no representative of an estate is properly appointed before the two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims has expired.

2026Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code and remand with instructions that the court grant Jared’s motion for leave to substitute plaintiff and for leave to file the proposed third amended complaint. ¶ 53 “The relation back statute permits an amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the original pleading was timely and the amendment grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the original pleading.” Lawler, 2017 IL 120745 , ¶ 20 (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (

2020Specifically, the co-administrators’ July 31, 2013, petition for a citation for the recovery of assets related back to the filing of the original citation for information. ¶ 73 The relation back doctrine is codified in section 2-616(b) of the Code as follows: “The cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in any amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought or right asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed, and if it shall app