United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Robert Wulff and Caitlyn Wulff, Husband and Wife v. Cma, Inc. And Reliance Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[t]he erroneous characterization of the corrected pleading as an ‘amended complaint’ rather than as a supplemental pleading is immaterial”
• finding that “[subcontractor’s] assignment to the [plaintiffs] of its claim against CMA cannot ratify the [plaintiffs’] commencement of suit on a claim which theretofore did not exist.”
• finding that Rule 17(a)(3) is designed “to prevent forfeiture of an action when determination of the right party to sue is difficult or when an understandable mistake has been made”
• stating that relief under Rule 17(a) is unwarranted “where a party with no cause of action files a lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations and later obtains a cause of action through assignment.”
• finding that an “understandable mistake” did not exist because previous efforts by creditors to obtain an assignment of a subcontractor’s claims against a contractor demonstrated that the creditors were aware that the subcontractor was the real party in interest
• relying on McCord, the 9th Circuit Court did not allow an amended complaint to add a cause of action that did not exist when the party filed the original complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).