Here's a scenario I’ve encountered in federal court one too many times: Paul Plaintiff timely sues ABC Corporation, and a few "John Doe Defendants." Paul sues the John Does because he doesn't yet know their proper identities or names, but intends to find out through discovery. After all, these John Does are ABC Corp.'s employees. Meanwhile, the statute of limitations lapses, and maybe Paul's lawyer wasn’t as diligent about serving those discovery requests as soon as he’d hoped. The requests are responded to, and those employees are identified. Paul then moves for leave to amend his complaint to substitute them for the John Does even though the statute has expired—without objection from yours truly (note: this is a matter of discretion and strategy.) Paul's claims against the newly added employees relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to his original complaint, so it's all good, right? Wrong.

Here's a scenario I’ve encountered in federal court one too many times: Paul Plaintiff timely sues ABC Corporation, and a few "John Doe Defendants." Paul sues the John Does because he doesn't yet know their proper identities or names, but intends to find out through discovery. After all, these John Does are ABC Corp.'s employees. Meanwhile, the statute of limitations lapses, and maybe Paul's lawyer wasn’t as diligent about serving those discovery requests as soon as he’d hoped. The requests are responded to, and those employees are identified. Paul then moves for leave to amend his complaint to substitute them for the John Does even though the statute has expired—without objection from yours truly (note: this is a matter of discretion and strategy.) Paul's claims against the newly added employees relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to his original complaint, so it's all good, right? Wrong.

The Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has posted a proposed rule amendment online for public comment.

The Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has posted a proposed rule amendment online for public comment.

The Indianapolis Bar Association and Nomad AV Systems will host training sessions at IndyBarHQ (140 N. Illinois St.) on Wednesday, May 18, Thursday, May 19 and Friday, May 20 for attorney members of the Indianapolis Bar Association, the Marion County Bar Association, the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Indiana and support staff.

The Indianapolis Bar Association and Nomad AV Systems will host training sessions at IndyBarHQ (140 N. Illinois St.) on Wednesday, May 18, Thursday, May 19 and Friday, May 20 for attorney members of the Indianapolis Bar Association, the Marion County Bar Association, the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Indiana and support staff.

On April 5, 2022, California federal judge ruled in favor of insurers, including AIG and Chubb, finding that, under their policies, there was no duty to defend pharmaceutical company policyholders in opioid epidemic lawsuits. This follows a growing trend from courts in finding no coverage owed for opioid-related claims.

On April 5, 2022, California federal judge ruled in favor of insurers, including AIG and Chubb, finding that, under their policies, there was no duty to defend pharmaceutical company policyholders in opioid epidemic lawsuits. This follows a growing trend from courts in finding no coverage owed for opioid-related claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a Pennsylvania's plaintiff to review whether a state, through statute or otherwise, can broaden its courts' jurisdiction over companies that do business in the state, although it is not the home of their corporate office.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a Pennsylvania's plaintiff to review whether a state, through statute or otherwise, can broaden its courts' jurisdiction over companies that do business in the state, although it is not the home of their corporate office.