relation-back doctrine in South Dakota

2018Lewis v. Moorhead, 522 N.W.2d 1, 6 (S.D. 1994). [¶31.] Although Charlotte submits that the relation-back doctrine should apply to statutes of repose, we need not decide that issue. 9 This is because for Charlotte’s amended petition to relate back, her amended claim must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original claim.

2013Co., 493 F.Supp. 143, 145 (D.Minn.1980). [¶ 16.] In response, Morningside argues that the relation back rule cannot apply because Waterman’s original and amended pleadings refer to different claims and assert different theories of recovery.

2013From our review of the relevant case law, it appears the relation back rule is remedial and should be liberally construed and applied. 2 Underlying the rule is the view that “ ‘a party who has been notified of litigation concerning a particular occurrence has been given all the notice that statutes of limitations were intended to provide.’” Maegdlin v. Int'l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 309 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.2002) (citation omitted); Senger, 493 F.Supp. at 145 (citing 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1497).

2013River Masonry, Inc., 2010 S.D. 4 , ¶ 10, 777 N.W.2d 363, 366 (quoting McNeil v. Superior Siding, Inc., 2009 S.D. 68, ¶ 6 , 771 N.W.2d 345, 347 ). [¶ 15.] Waterman argues that the ALJ interpreted the statutory language too restrictively, relying solely on the dictionary.com definition of “occurrence.” Citing federal case law and secondary sources, Waterman maintains that the relation back rule applies because her amended petition seeks identical workers’ compensation benefits, based on the same employment relationship and same job duties, stemming from an already-determined compensable work-rel

2013From our review of the relevant case law, it appears the relation back rule is remedial and should be liberally construed and applied. 2 Underlying the rule is the view that “ ‘a party who has been notified of litigation concerning a particular occurrence has been given all the notice that statutes of limitations were intended to provide.’” Maegdlin v. Int'l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 309 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.2002) (citation omitted); Senger, 493 F.Supp. at 145 (citing 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1497).

2008Aramony v. United Way of America, 969 F.Supp. 226, 231 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (stating "counterclaim tolls its limitations period at the filing of the initial complaint if it is compulsory, but not until the service of the counterclaim if it is permissive”) (citations omitted); MacDonald v. Riggs, 166 P.3d 12, 18 (Alaska 2007) (stating that the counterclaim is compulsory and relates back “if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim”) (citation omitted).

2008Aramony v. United Way of America, 969 F.Supp. 226, 231 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (stating "counterclaim tolls its limitations period at the filing of the initial complaint if it is compulsory, but not until the service of the counterclaim if it is permissive”) (citations omitted); MacDonald v. Riggs, 166 P.3d 12, 18 (Alaska 2007) (stating that the counterclaim is compulsory and relates back “if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim”) (citation omitted).

1994USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners LTD., 578 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir.1978).

1994USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners LTD., 578 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir.1978).