Glenis Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, in No. 71-1476 Appeal of Albert Commissiong. Appeal of Marie Danet

Third Circuit

Glenis Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, in No. 71-1476 Appeal of Albert Commissiong. Appeal of Marie Danet

455 F.2d 985, 8 V.I. 511, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1371, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1972

Docket71-1476 through 71-1478

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 455 F.2d 985 (Glenis Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, in No. 71-1476 Appeal of Albert Commissiong. Appeal of Marie Danet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glenis Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, in No. 71-1476 Appeal of Albert Commissiong. Appeal of Marie Danet, 455 F.2d 985, 8 V.I. 511, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1371, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10819 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

opinion of the court

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff sought a judgment in the Municipal Court of the Virgin Islands against defendant-bank and two of its employees for false arrest. At the close of her evidence plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for false imprisonment. The court granted the motion. At the conclusion of the trial judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff. Defendants appealed to the District Court which affirmed.

Defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that it was error for the Municipal Court to permit the amendment to add a claim for false imprisonment since the statute of limitations had then run on any new claim. Plaintiff argues that Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(c) clearly supports the granting of the amendment.

Rule 15(c) provides in pertinent part that “Whenever the claim . . . asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth ... in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” The plaintiff attempted to cash two travelers checks which the owner had transferred to her and which she endorsed. Because of a discrepancy between the owner’s signature and the countersignature the bank employees caused plaintiff to be arrested and “imprisoned” under circumstances which rendered them *513 civilly liable. We have no doubt that the false imprisonment claim arose out of the conduct or occurrence set forth in the original complaint. Thus, Rule 15(c) was applicable. The false imprisonment claim therefore related back to the date of the original pleading and was not barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

opinion of the court

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff sought a judgment in the Municipal Court of the Virgin Islands against defendant-bank and two of its employees for false arrest. At the close of her evidence plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for false imprisonment. The court granted the motion. At the conclusion of the trial judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff. Defendants appealed to the District Court which affirmed.

Defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that it was error for the Municipal Court to permit the amendment to add a claim for false imprisonment since the statute of limitations had then run on any new claim. Plaintiff argues that Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(c) clearly supports the granting of the amendment.

Rule 15(c) provides in pertinent part that “Whenever the claim . . . asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth ... in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” The plaintiff attempted to cash two travelers checks which the owner had transferred to her and which she endorsed. Because of a discrepancy between the owner’s signature and the countersignature the bank employees caused plaintiff to be arrested and “imprisoned” under circumstances which rendered them *513 civilly liable. We have no doubt that the false imprisonment claim arose out of the conduct or occurrence set forth in the original complaint. Thus, Rule 15(c) was applicable. The false imprisonment claim therefore related back to the date of the original pleading and was not barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 F.2d 985, 8 V.I. 511, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1371, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenis-martin-v-virgin-islands-national-bank-in-no-71-1476-appeal-of-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack