Initial Pleading of Transaction Details Permits Relation Back of Later Claim of False Advertising
The plaintiff sued the defendant for rescission of a contract between it and the defendant, and for damages, arising from a dispute involving interpretation of terms of a contract between it and the defendant. Just prior to trial, the plaintiff attempted to amend its complaint to state a claim for false advertising under Wis. Stat. §100.18. By this time, more than three years had elapsed since the entering of the contract. The defendant argued that the false advertising claim did not relate back because the plaintiff had not given notice in its initial complaint of specific statements intended to induce the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The circuit court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the false advertising claim, and the plaintiff appealed.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that the defendant had been given adequate notice that a false advertising claim could be raised when it pled a description of the transaction, occurrence or event out of which the false advertising claim arose, in its initial complaint. The court noted that the plaintiff had pled specific facts in its initial complaint highlighting significant disagreements with the defendant regarding the defendant’s obligations under the contract. The court cited an old US Supreme Court case, Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 323 US 574 (1945), for the proposition that an amended complaint relates back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes even if it adds a legal theory of recovery not stated in the original complaint and relying upon specific facts not originally asserted, if the defendant has notice of the transaction, occurrence or event out of which the new legal theory arose.
Eau Claire County v. Softscape, Inc. (2009AP2610) Court of Appeals opinion
