Epstein Secrets

irms that relation back also "extends by analogy to amendments changing plaintiffs." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, Adv. Comm. Notes, 1966 Amend. According to the Advisory Committee, the new version of Rule 15(c) did not include express language about adding plaintiffs because that "problem is generally easier" than adding defe

in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Pasludy v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women bec

irms that relation back also "extends by analogy to amendments changing plaintiffs." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, Adv. Comm. Notes, 1966 Amend. According to the Advisory Committee, the new version of Rule 15(c) did not include express language about adding plaintiffs because that "problem is generally easier" than adding defe

in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Paskuly v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women bec

irms that relation back also "extends by analogy to amendments changing plaintiffs." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, Adv. Comm. Notes, 1966 Amend. According to the Advisory Committee, the new version of Rule I5(c) did not include express language about adding plaintiffs because that "problem is generally easier" than adding defe

e in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Paskulyl. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women bec