Conicienne v. Asante

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-26-2015
  • Case #: A154121
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, K. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

An amended complaint that relates back to the original complaint in that it “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading” is not barred by the statute of limitations according to ORCP 23 C.

Concienne brought action against Asante and Kather for professional negligence. Concienne amended the complaint and Asante claimed it violated the statute of limitations because the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint. The Court held that, under ORCP 23 C, the amended complaint did relate back to the original complaint so was not barred by the statute of limitations because the amended complaint added more particularity about Kather's negligence, and involved the same facts in the original complaint. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search