Tarta v. Nation Care, Inc.
864 F. Supp. 2d 173
D.D.C.2012Background
- Tarta sues Nation Care, Inc. (NCI) and its owner Fon under Title VII and Maryland law for hostile environment, retaliation, and battery.
- Amended Complaint adds NCI as a defendant; original claim named only Fon.
- EEOC notice: right-to-sue issued May 31, 2011; plaintiff filed original complaint within 90 days (Aug. 29, 2011).
- Amended Complaint (Dec. 12, 2011) seeks Title VII relief against NCI and asserts battery against Fon.
- Defendants move to dismiss (Dec. 21, 2011) arguing untimeliness and lack of relation back; state claims potentially fall with Title VII dismissal.
- Court denies motion, holding Amended Complaint relates back under Rule 15(c) and retains jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amended Complaint relates back to original. | Tarta's Amended Complaint relates back under Rule 15(c) because it arises from the same conduct and NCI had notice. | NCI argues relation back fails because misnaming and notice timing do not meet Rule 15(c) requirements. | Amendment related back; timely under Rule 15(c). |
| Whether NCI's inclusion is timely within Rule 4(m) notice period. | NCI had notice within 120-day period due to filings and actions naming NCI during original suit. | Notice timing did not satisfy relation-back prerequisites. | Notice within Rule 4(m) period satisfied; relation back permitted. |
| Whether state-law battery claims survive after Title VII claims remain before court. | Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 allows state claims as part of same case. | If Title VII claims fail, Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over battery. | State-law claims remain under supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (test for relation back under Rule 15(c))
- Miller v. Bill Harbert Int’l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (notice to newly named defendant under Rule 15(c))
- Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21 (1986) (former Rule 15 result; amended Rule 15(c) liberalizes relation back)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (limitations and jurisdiction framework for courts)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing and jurisdiction principles for courts)