United States Second Circuit

Where it is appropriate to relate back an amendment to a pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), et. seq., jurisdiction is assessed as if the amendment had taken place at the time the complaint was first filed.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/04/1999
• Decided 02/20/2001
• Published 02/20/2001

Judges

• Before JACOBS, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• George Marshall Moriarty (John T. Montgomery, Rachel E. Hershfang, Catherine A. Mondell, James W. Matthews, on the brief), Ropes & Gray, Boston, MA, for London Defendants-Appellants., Louis Solomon, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer & Sharp, (Hal S. Shaftel, Caroline S. Press, and Laleh Ispahani, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer & Sharp;  and Robert S. Rifkind, Cravath, Swain & Moore, New York, NY, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee., Charles A. Booth, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, New York, NY, (James W. Greene, Thompson, O'Donnell, Markham, Norton & Hannon), for Defendant-Appellant Continental Casualty Co., Richard H. Gimer, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Washington, DC, (Paul N. Farquharson, Thomas V. McCarron, on the brief) for Defendant-Appellant Commercial Union Insurance Co., Anthony R. Gambardella, (Robert B. Kambic), Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Co., Norman J. Golub, Marshall, Conway & Wright, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant American Home Assurance Co., and Appellant Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania.