Quimbee

A responsive pleading is a pleading that is filed in reaction, or response, to another party’s pleading.

The most common responsive pleading is the answer, which responds to the complaint. A party may also plead in response to a crossclaim, a counterclaim, a third-party claim, or an answer.

The Answer, which responds to the complaint.

Generally, within 21 days after the PL serves the summons and complaint on the DF, DF must file the answer with the court and serve it on the plaintiff.

If the DF waives service of process, this time is extended to 60 days after the waiver request was sent, if the request was sent to the DF within the United States.

In a federal civil case, a party may bring several motions based on the pleadings alone. The most important of these motions are:
• Motion to dismiss,
• Motion for judgment on the pleadings,
• Motion for a more definite statement, and
• Motion to strike.
These motions are provided for by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, these are collectively called Rule 12 motions.

In a federal civil case, a party may bring several motions based on the pleadings alone.
• Motion to dismiss,
• Motion for judgment on the pleadings,
• Motion for a more definite statement, and
• Motion to strike.

A party who serves a Rule 12 motion must usually do so before serving its responsive pleading. If the court denies the Rule 12 motion or postpones a ruling until trial, then the party must serve its responsive pleading within 14 days after receiving notice of the court’s denial or decision, unless the court orders a different time. If the court grants a motion for a more definite statement, then the party must serve its responsive pleading within 14 days after being served with the more definite statement, unless the court orders a different time.

The exception to this process is a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which can only be brought after all pleadings are completed.

A motion that asks the court to require the opposing party to more clearly state its claims or defenses in its pleading. The moving party must show that the opponent’s pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the moving party cannot reasonably prepare a response. This motion may be brought only if a responsive pleading is allowed.

This motion is typically brought by a DF before answering the complaint. However, the motion may be brought by any party before serving any responsive pleading, e.g., by a PL before answering a counterclaim.

The moving party must show that the opponent’s pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the moving party cannot reasonably prepare a response.

The moving party must bring a motion for a more definite statement before filing its responsive pleading.

Typically, this will involve a DF’s bringing the motion before answering the complaint.

If the DF waives service of process, this time is extended to 60 days after the waiver request was sent, if the request was sent to the DF within the United States.

A motion for a more definite statement must identify both the defects in the opponent’s pleading and the details that the moving party seeks.

After the waiver request was sent, if the request was sent to the DF within the United States.

A party who is ordered to provide a more definite statement must do so within 14 days of receiving notice of the order or within any other time ordered by the court.

A pleading, crossclaim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or an answer.

No.

If the court strikes a pleading, then the pleading is given no effect in the case. In essence, the court will treat the pleading as if it had never been filed.

If a party fails to obey an order to provide a more definite statement, the court may strike the pleading or enter any other order that is appropriate.

The court has discretion to decide what type of order would be appropriate in a given case.

Then the party must serve its responsive pleading within 14 days after receiving notice of the court’s denial or decision, unless the court orders a different time.

Then the party must serve its responsive pleading within 14 days after being served with the more definite statement, unless the court orders a different time.

No. The motion is not timely because the DF brought the motion after answering the complaint. A motion for a more definite statement asks the court to require the opposing party to clarify the allegations in its pleading. The moving party must show that the opponent’s pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the moving party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The moving party must bring a motion for a more definite statement before filing its responsive pleading.

Here, the DF’s answer was the responsive pleading to the PL’s complaint. Thus, if the DF wanted to move for a more definite statement, the DF had to do so before answering the complaint. Instead, the DF answered first, then moved for a more definite statement. Thus, because the DF filed the answer first, the motion for a more definite statement is not timely.

Only after all pleadings are completed.

A motion that asks the court to remove from a pleading any insufficient defense or any material that is scandalous, immaterial, impertinent, or redundant (S.I.I.R.).

The moving party must bring a motion to strike before filing a responsive pleading or, if no responsive pleading is allowed, within 21 days after being served with the offending pleading.

The court may also strike such material on its own initiative, without awaiting a motion.

• Motions to strike are disfavored and are rarely granted.
• A court generally will grant a motion to strike only if the challenged material has no possible relevance to the case or if the material is truly scandalous.
• Material is considered truly scandalous if it unnecessarily attacks a party’s character or lessens the dignity of the court.
• However, courts sometimes decline to strike even offensive or disturbing material if it is relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses.

Material is considered truly scandalous if it unnecessarily attacks a party’s character or lessens the dignity of the court.

Yes. Generally, all of a party’s defenses must be included in that party’s responsive pleading, if one is required.

A court generally will grant a motion to strike only if the challenged material has no possible relevance to the case or if the material is truly scandalous.

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction,
(3) improper venue,
(4) insufficient process,
(5) insufficient service of process,
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
(7) failure to join a required party.

Motions raising these defenses are sometimes called motions to dismiss, because the moving party—usually the DF—will ask to court to dismiss the case on one of the specified grounds.

No. A Rule 12(b) motion is an optional way for a party to raise any of the Rule 12(b) defenses.
A party may choose to forego a Rule 12(b) motion and raise those defenses in its responsive pleading or in some other way allowed by the civil rules.
However, a party who chooses to bring any Rule 12 motion must normally include all of its Rule 12 defenses, including its Rule 12(b) defenses, in a single motion.

Any Rule 12(b) motion must be brought before the moving party serves its responsive pleading.

If no responsive pleading is required, then the party may raise its Rule 12(b) defenses at trial.

Yes. Generally, a party must combine all of its available Rule 12 defenses and objections in a single motion. With a few exceptions, a party who omits an available Rule 12 issue from its Rule 12 motion may not make a second Rule 12 motion based on the omitted defense or objection. This rule streamlines pretrial procedure by preventing a succession of motions addressed to the pleadings.

No. The court should not allow the motion to strike, because DF didn't combine all Rule 12 issues in one motion. Rule 12 allows a party to raise various defenses and objections by motion before serving a responsive pleading. These include a defense of improper venue and a motion to strike. A party who brings a Rule 12 motion generally must combine all available Rule 12 issues into one motion. A party may not bring a second Rule 12 motion based on an issue that it could have included in the first motion.

Here, DF brought a Rule 12 motion raising the defense of improper venue. The DF could have included a motion to strike, because, at that time, the DF knew what was alleged in the complaint. However, DF omitted the motion to strike from her Rule 12 motion. Thus, DF may not bring a second Rule 12 motion to raise that issue.

(1) lack of personal jurisdiction,
(2) improper venue,
(3) insufficient process, and
(4) insufficient service of process.

Thus, to avoid a waiver, these defenses must be included in a party’s Rule 12 motion, if one is filed. Otherwise, they must be included in the party’s responsive pleading.

(1) Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted,
(2) Failure to join a required party under Rule 19(b),
(3) Failure to state a legal defense to a claim, and
(4) Lck of subject-matter jurisdiction.

A party may raise the defenses: J.P.P.T.

• in a motion for JUDGMENT on the PLEADINGS,
• in any PLEADING,
or
• at TRIAL.

• Thus, these defenses are not waived if a party fails to include them in a Rule 12 motion.

Some defenses are exempt from the requirement to combine all Rule 12 defenses in a single motion. These defenses are:

• Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted,
• Failure to join a required party under Rule 19(b),
• Failure to state a legal defense to a claim, and
• Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Yes. The DF has waived the defense of improper venue. Rule 12 allows a party to raise various defenses either in its responsive pleading or by motion before pleading. Rule 12 also provides that various defenses are waived if a party fails to raise them either in a motion brought before pleading or in the responsive pleading itself. Among these defenses is improper venue.

Here, the DF failed to raise improper venue as a defense in a pre-answer motion. The DF also omitted this defense from the answer. Rule 12 expressly provides that improper venue is waived if it is not raised in either of these settings. Thus, the DF has waived the defense of improper venue.

• A Rule 12(b) motion is an optional way for a party to raise any of the Rule 12(b) defenses.
• A party may choose to forego a Rule 12(b) motion and raise those defenses in its responsive pleading or in some other way allowed by the civil rules.
• However, a party who chooses to bring any Rule 12 motion must normally include all of its Rule 12 defenses, including its Rule 12(b) defenses, in a single motion.

No, because the DF waived lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense as of the date that she filed her pre-answer motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

Rule 12 provides that if a pre-answer motion asserting any waivable defense is filed, all waivable defenses must be raised in the same motion.
After asserting a waivable defense in a pre-answer motion, DF isn't permitted to make another pre-answer motion asserting another waivable defense, or to raise another waivable defense in answer or any subsequent filing. See FRCP 12(g)(2); 12(h)(1). Here, DF filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process, which is a waivable defense. However, DF failed to raise the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in this pre-answer motion. (Note that lack of personal jurisdiction, unlike lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, is a waivable defense.) Per FRCP 12(h), DF's failure to raise lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense in the previously filed pre-answer motion effectively waived her right to the defense.

No, because the court must be liberal in allowing the parties to amend their pleadings where there is a possibility that amendment will be fruitful.

Rule 15(a) provides a court should give liberal leave to amend absent limited circumstances where denial of leave to amend is justified (e.g., if the motion is made in bad faith, would cause undue delay, or would prejudice the opposing party). Here, there's no indication of special circumstances that would warrant a denial of PL's motion to amend; accordingly, the court will likely grant PL's motion.

Fourteen days from the date the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to the FRCP, DF generally has 21 days to submit an answer to a PL's complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1), (4). However, instead of submitting an answer, DF may file a pre-answer motion within that same initial 21-day period. If an appropriate and timely pre-answer motion is filed, DF's time to file an answer will be extended to the date that is 14 days after the court has ordered a decision on the pre-answer motion.
Here, the DF filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss within 21 days of being served with the original complaint. This was timely motion to dismiss. The motion was later denied by the court. Accordingly, DF now has 14 days from date court denied the DF's motion to dismiss to file an answer to the complaint.

Yes, b/c arguments that a PL failed to state a claim may be raised at trial.

A defense PL has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted may be raised in any pleading (either a pre-answer motion under Rule 12 or the answer), by a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), or at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2). While lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time (including for the first time on appeal), failure to state a claim may be raised in any pleading, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial.

Here, the federal district court will consider the corporation’s argument that the PL failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. That defense may be raised at trial, even if the corporation did not argue it earlier.

An answer that responds to certain paragraphs in complaint w/ general assertions that the DF has affirmative defenses to PL’s allegations.

DF may provide a response to a PL's complaint by either filing a pre-answer motion to dismiss or by filing an answer. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 8(b)(1)(A), (c)(1); 12(b). The answer must either be a general denial of all allegations in the complaint, or it must respond to each paragraph and allegation asserted in the complaint by admitting it, denying it, or stating that the defendant "lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of [it]." See FRCP 8(b). If a DF denies a particular allegation, the denial "must fairly respond to the substance of [that] allegation." Id. at 8(b)(2). Accordingly, affirmative defenses are held to the same standard as the allegations of the complaint; they must be detailed enough to give the plaintiff fair notice of the defenses to be asserted. A general assertion that the defendant will raise an affirmative defense does not effectively respond to the details of the PL's allegation.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Yes, b/c if a claim is no longer warranted, PL shouldn't continue to insist on that claim. Rule 11 prevents parties from filing frivolous papers and claims with the court by requiring that parties file papers that:

(1) are not filed for an "improper purpose";
(2) accurately represent the law and relevant authorities or set forth nonfrivolous arguments for changing the law; and
(3) represent factual assertions that are objectively reasonable at the time of filing.

Statements of fact must "have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery."

(1) are not filed for an "improper purpose";
(2) accurately represent the law and relevant authorities or set forth nonfrivolous arguments for changing the law; and
(3) represent factual assertions that are objectively reasonable at the time of filing.

The court sua sponte initiates sanctions against the PL's attorney and imposes Rule 11 sanctions after giving the PL’s attorney notice and an opportunity to respond. Here, it's appropriate for the court to initiate sanctions against attorney, who should've known courts had previously rejected a claim on identical facts.

(1) by a court on its own initiative (sua sponte); or
(2) by an opposing party's motion.

In considering sanctioning a party (or that party's attorney), the court considers the circumstances surrounding the party's Rule 11(b) violation.

PL may either:
(1) file an amended complaint withdrawing her claim of age discrimination or
(2) keep the current complaint but not proceed with the claim at trial.

A party has a duty not to persist with any contention once the party learns there is no factual support for that contention. If the party knows this before filing a complaint, then the party may not file the claim. However, if party learns this after filing the party’s duty is to stop pursuing any baseless claims. The fact PL wasn't able to obtain this evidence does not mean they violated Rule 11. However, PL may violate Rule 11 going forward if she continues to pursue this claim in any way after learning there's no evidentiary basis.

(1) aren't filed for improper purpose,
(2) accurately represent the law and relevant authorities or set forth nonfrivolous arguments for changing the law, and
(3) represent factual assertions that are objectively reasonable at time of filing.

The court may issue an order to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed, and provide the attorney with notice and an opportunity to respond or otherwise correct her error.

Rule 11(a) requires every paper filed in a federal civil case be signed either: (1) by an attorney of record, in the attorney's name; or (2) by the party for whom the paper is submitted, if not represented by an attorney. If a paper isn't signed, the court must strike it on its own initiative unless the error is corrected promptly after being called to the party's attention.

Here, PL's attorney violated Rule 11(a) by ordering paralegal to sign complaint. Even if complaint or paper is drafted by a paralegal, ultimate responsibility of reviewing and filing the paper with the court lies with either pro se litigant or represented party's attorney. Id. Although Rule 11(a) permits the court to strike an unsigned or improperly signed pleading or document, due process still requires the court provide notice and chance for the party to explain, defend, or amend its mistake. Generally, when courts acts on their initiative, it must do so through show-cause order, whereby a party is provided notice and an opportunity to respond and/or remedy its error.

Yes, b/c complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Rule 8(a)(2) requires that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." If a complaint lacks any such statement of fact, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Merely reciting the law or any applicable legal elements of a claim aren't accepted as "claims" by courts.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Rule 8(a)(2) requires the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

If a complaint lacks any such statement of fact, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Merely reciting the law or any applicable legal elements of a claim aren't accepted as "claims" by courts.

Yes, because the applicable state law does not recognize the "apparent authority" theory.

A complaint fails to state a claim if it fails to allege facts that constitute a cause of action under applicable law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 12(b).

Yes, b/c DF has not waived the defense, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper when the pleadings and amendment period has passed.

Defense of failure to state a claim can be raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss, a post-answer motion for "judgment on the pleadings," or at trial. Specifically, Rule 12(c) provides that a DF can assert this defense before trial by making a motion for "judgment on the pleadings." However, a motion for judgment on the pleadings cannot be made until the pleadings and amendment period has passed.

No, because more than 21 days have passed from the date of PL's answer to DF’s counterclaim.

Rule 15(a)(1) says a party may amend its pleading "once as a matter of course" before trial within either: (1) 21 days after serving its pleading, or (2) if the pleading sought to be amended is one that requires the opposing party's response, then 21 days after the responsive pleading is served or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

(1) 21 days after serving its pleading, or
(2) if the pleading sought to be amended is one that requires the opposing party's response, then 21 days after the responsive pleading is served or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

Yes, b/c it was filed within 21 days of the PL's motion to dismiss.

(1) Motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b);
(2) Motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e); and
(3) Motion to strike under Rule 12(f).

(1) undue delay;
(2) bad faith or dilatory actions on the part of the movant;
(3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed;
(4) undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment; and
(5) futility of the amendment. In the absence of these factors, courts freely grant leave to amend.

DF must show that there's no plausible legal theory under which PL could recover.

Yes, this means that the party has failed to state a claim that is plausible on its face.

Yes, in other words, a party might fail to state a claim if there's no law that would entitle the pleader to relief, even if all the facts alleged were true.

No, courts don't typically accept testimony or other evidence in the course of the motion. Thus, the motion is sometimes said to be resolved solely on the face of the pleadings.

The court must treat it as a motion for summary judgment instead. Effectively, it allows the court to go beyond the pleadings to decide the case on the evidence. In that case, each party must be allowed to present all material that is germane to the motion.

A motion requesting judgment in the moving party’s favor based only on the pleadings and not on any evidence or other material outside the pleadings. Thus, the motion is sometimes said to be resolved solely on the face of the pleadings.

This must be brought after the time for serving all pleadings is over but early enough so as not to delay the trial.

Yes. Any party may move for summary judgment on any claim or defense or on any part of a claim or defense. Thus, summary judgment may be total or partial.

A material fact can be defined as a fact that makes a difference in the legal resolution of the case. A fact that is not material is sometimes called an immaterial or collateral fact.

The court may grant summary judgment only if:
(1) there is no genuine issue of material fact and
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Under these conditions, there is no need for a trial to resolve the case.

(1) there is no genuine issue of material fact and
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

At any time up to 30 days after the end of discovery. However, the court may order a different time for filing the motion.

The record consists of all documents filed with the court, all discovery conducted in the case, and any other documents or things that are part of the official history of the case from the time of filing.

Yes. Unlike Rule 12 motions, which are generally decided only on the pleadings, a summary-judgment motion is decided based on the demonstrable facts of the case. Thus, each party must cite evidence or other materials from the case record to show that there is or is not a genuine dispute about any material fact.

The parties may cite any materials in the record, including affidavits and any information gathered in discovery.

These materials may include depositions, answers to interrogatories, answers to requests for admissions, stipulations, and any other information contained in the record.

A motion brought during or after trial asking the court to bypass the jury to enter judgment in favor of the moving party on a particular claim or defense.

Yes. A court has the power to correct a clerical mistake, or some other mistake arising from an oversight or omission, in a judgment, order, or any other part of the record.

Yes. A party may file a motion to correct a clerical mistake or any other mistake arising from an oversight or omission, in any part of the record. The court may also correct such errors on its own initiative, without awaiting a motion.

Yes. A party may move in the trial court for relief from a final judgment, order, or other proceeding. This type of motion is commonly called a motion for relief from a judgment.

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered in time to move for a new trial;
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an opposing party; or
(4) any other reason that justifies relief.

(1) the judgment is void;
(2) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or
(3) the judgment is based on an earlier judgment that is no longer valid or applying the judgment is no longer equitable.

(1) the grounds for jurisdiction,
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim, and
(3) a demand for relief.

A party need only include enough factual detail in a pleading to give the other party notice of the claim or defense. Notice pleading requires minimal factual detail, in the expectation that the parties will develop the facts more fully as the case progresses. The federal system is generally regarded as a notice-pleading system.

In general, a federal complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face if those facts are assumed to be true. This requires more than mere conclusions of fact or law. Nonetheless, pleadings typically do not need to include great factual detail.

Yes. A party may plead alternative or inconsistent claims, defenses, or demands for relief in the same pleading. The party’s ultimate grounds for recovery or defense will depend on the final development of the facts at trial.

In a federal civil case, the circumstances that constitute fraud or mistake must be pleaded with particularity. This means that the underlying facts must be alleged more specifically, and in more detail, than the facts underlying other kinds of allegations.

In an answer, or any other responsive pleading, a party must:

(1) state its defenses in short and plain terms,
(2) admit or deny the opposing party’s allegations, and
(3) raise any affirmative defenses.

DF must serve the answer within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint. If DF waives service of process, DF must serve the answer within 60 days from when the waiver request was sent, or within 90 days if the request was sent to DF outside the US. If DF makes a pre-answer motion, DF must serve the answer within 14 days of the court’s ruling on the motion.

A general denial is a statement in a responsive pleading that denies all of the allegations in the opposing party’s pleading, including the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.

Astatement in a responsive pleading that denies particular allegations in an opposing party’s pleading. They're used if the responding party intends to admit some allegations and deny others. The responding party may either deny specific allegations or make a general denial of all allegations except those that it specifically admits.

Yes, that party must admit whatever part of the allegation is true and deny the rest. In other words, a party may not deny an entire allegation merely because some part of it is untrue.

A party that does not have enough knowledge or information to determine the truth of an allegation must say so. This has the same effect as a denial.

A similar issue can arise if a party believes that an allegation is false but lacks sufficient knowledge to deny the allegation definitively. In this situation, courts often allow DF to deny the allegation so long as DF has enough info to form a good-faith belief the allegation is false.

If a responsive pleading is required, and the responding party does not deny an opposing party’s allegation, then that allegation is deemed to be admitted. However, this rule does not apply to any allegation regarding the amount of damages.

Yes, an affirmative defense that is not pleaded will be waived.

It's most simply described as a claim by DF against a PL. More technically, a counterclaim is a claim by any defending party against someone who is asserting a claim against the defending party.

In federal pleading, a claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as another claim if the two claims arise from the same events, involve largely identical issues of law and fact, or will be litigated using substantially the same evidence.

These claims are sometimes said to share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Compulsory counterclaims are those that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim. A counterclaim is not compulsory, however, if it requires the addition of parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. A compulsory counterclaim that is not pleaded may be lost; that is, the party may be barred from raising it in a later proceeding.

By definition, all counterclaims that are not compulsory are permissive. A party is allowed to plead a permissive counterclaim, but the failure to plead it does not bar the party from raising it in a later proceeding.

A claim by one party against a co-party; e.g., a claim by one PL against another PL or by one DF against another DF.

Unlike some counterclaims, crossclaims are not compulsory in federal procedure. Thus, a party is allowed to plead a crossclaim, but the failure to plead it does not bar the party from raising it in a separate proceeding. This is true regardless of whether the crossclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as another claim in the case.

A party who is not free to amend its pleading as a matter of course may amend before trial only with:

(1) opposing party’s written consent or
(2) court’s permission, which is also called leave to amend.

(1) opposing party’s written consent or
(2) court’s permission, which is also called leave to amend.

FRCP provides that the court should freely give leave to amend if justice requires. Usually, leave to amend will be denied only if it will cause actual prejudice to the other party, or if the amendment is motivated by bad faith.

(1) Within the time left to respond to the original pleading or
(2) Within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.

However, the court may order a different time for the response.

Yes. At trial, if a party presents evidence about matters outside the pleadings, and the opposing party objects, the court should freely allow the parties to amend the pleadings to match the evidence. The court should allow the amendment so long as the amendment will aid in presenting the merits of the case. However, the court may disallow the amendment if the evidence will prejudice the objecting party.

No. If an issue is not raised in the pleadings but is tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, then the issue is treated the same as if it had been raised in the pleadings.

While amendment is not required in this situation, a party nonetheless may move at any time, even after final judgment, to amend the pleadings to match the evidence at trial. However, a party’s failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial.

It's treated just as if it had been included in the original pleading. This issue can arise if a party seeks to amend its pleading after some time limit has expired, usually via the statute of limitations.

(1) If the statute of limitations allows relation back,
(2) if the amendment arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading, or
(3) under certain conditions, if the amendment changes a party or the name of a party against whom the pleader asserts a claim.

(1) the amendment arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading and
(2) within the period allowed for serving the summons and complaint, the party being added (A) received sufficient notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending the case and (B) knew or should have known that the case would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.

No. The question of relation back in this situation focuses on whether the named party had sufficient knowledge and notice to allow relation back. The amending party’s initial mistake or lack of due diligence is not a factor.

Yes. A slight majority of courts holds that an amendment may relate back if it seeks to add a new party instead of substituting one party for another, provided that the party to be added had adequate notice of the suit.

On the other hand, some courts allow relation back only if the amendment seeks either to change a party’s name or to replace one party with another.

A pleading that raises occurrences or events that take place after the party has filed its original pleading.

This focus on later events is what distinguishes a supplemental pleading from an amendment, which is typically used to make changes in the claims, defenses, or parties that arise from the facts contained in the original pleading.
A party who seeks to file a supplemental pleading must bring a motion asking the court for permission.