Under Rule 15(d), may a plaintiff supplement the complaint with an intentional tort claim arising after the original complaint if it relates to the underlying business tort claim?

Under Rule 15(d), may a plaintiff supplement the complaint with an intentional tort claim arising after the original complaint if it relates to the underlying business tort claim?

• A. Yes, because Rule 15(d) allows supplementation of post-complaint claims related to underlying claim
• B. No
• C. Yes, but only with permission of the judge
• D. Yes, regardless of relation

Answer: (A)

Rule 15(d) allows adding by supplemental pleading post-complaint facts or claims that arise after the original filing if they relate to the same transaction, occurrence, or subject matter as the claims already before the court. If a plaintiff later discovers an intentional tort that is connected to the same business tort and arises out of the same core events, it fits this provision and can be included as a supplemental claim. The key is the relation to the underlying claim—the new tort must be tied to the same set of facts or events. The court has discretion to permit such a supplement on motion, but the essential idea is that you can bring in related post-complaint claims that arise from the same controversy.

Rule 15(d) allows adding by supplemental pleading post-complaint facts or claims that arise after the original filing if they relate to the same transaction, occurrence, or subject matter as the claims already before the court. If a plaintiff later discovers an intentional tort that is connected to the same business tort and arises out of the same core events, it fits this provision and can be included as a supplemental claim. The key is the relation to the underlying claim—the new tort must be tied to the same set of facts or events. The court has discretion to permit such a supplement on motion, but the essential idea is that you can bring in related post-complaint claims that arise from the same controversy.