# KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A > Supreme Court of the United States · June 7, 2010 · 560 U.S. 538 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435669 ## Case - **Full name:** Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. P. A. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 7, 2010 - **Citations:** 560 U.S. 538; 130 S. Ct. 2485; 177 L. Ed. 2d 48; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4567 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Sotomayor, Scalia - **Cited by:** 914 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435669 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that the district court erred in denying relation back where the corporate defendant that plaintiff sought to add under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) was related to named defendant, had "constructive notice" of the original complaint within the Rule 4(m) period, and should have … - explaining that, “[w]hen the original complaint and the plaintiff's conduct compel the conclusion that the failure to name the prospective defendant in the original complaint was the result of a fully informed decision as opposed to a mistake concerning the proper defendant’s … - finding relation back when proper and improper defendant were related corporate entities with similar names, proper defendant knew name similarity was confusing for customers, and the complaint “made clear” that the plaintiff intended to sue the proper defendant but for the mi… - reasoning that even if a plaintiff’s mistake is not reasonable, the defendant still could understand that the plaintiff “harbor[s] a misunderstanding about his status or role in the events giving rise to the claim at issue and she may mistakenly choose to sue a different defen… - explaining that the pur- pose of relation back is “to balance the interests of the defend- ant protected by the statute of limitations with the preference expressed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in general, and Rule 15 in particular, for resolving disputes on their m… ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join the Court’s opinion except for its reliance, ante, at 550-551, 554, n. 5, on the Notes of the Advisory Committee as establishing the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C). The Advisory Committee’s insights into the proper interpretation of a Rule’s text are useful to the same extent as any scholarly commentary. But the Committee’s intentions have no effect on the Rule’s meaning. Even assuming that we and the Congress that allowed the Rule to take effect read and agreed with those intentions, it is the text of the Rule that controls. Tome v. United States, 513 U. S. 150, 167-168 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435669. Public record. Not legal advice.