Flashcards Studio

A passenger sued "Metro Bus Company" in federal court after a city bus struck her car. The complaint was filed two days before the limitations period expired and alleged negligent operation of bus route 42 on January 5. The correct operating entity was "Metro Transit Authority," a related public corporation whose legal department received the complaint 20 days after filing because both entities use the same claims administrator. Metro Bus Company answered and disclosed in initial disclosures that it did not operate buses. The scheduling order set a deadline of June 1 for amended pleadings.
On July 15, after taking the driver's deposition, the passenger moved to amend to substitute Metro Transit Authority as defendant and add a negligent-training claim based on the same route 42 collision. The proposed defendant argues that the amendment is late, futile, and time-barred. The passenger says everyone knew which bus accident was at issue and that she made a naming mistake.
How should the court analyze the motion to amend? Discuss amendment as a matter of course, Rule 16 good cause, Rule 15 leave, relation back for the new claim, and relation back for changing the defendant.