context: The court held that the plaintiffs amended complaint, filed after her appointment as administratrix, would relate back to the original filing date. See E.R.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 93 F.3d 781, 790
citation_a.parenthetical: permitting relation back of statutory claim which initially lacked sufficient allegation of unreimbursed expenses
citation_a.sentence: Hakusan II, 954 F.2d 874, 886-87 (3d Cir.1992) (allowing omission of a non-diverse defendant and allowing relation back to original filing); see also Black v. Sec’y of Health and Human Sens., 93 F.3d 781, 790 (Fed.Cir.1996) (permitting relation back of statutory claim which initially lacked sufficient allegation of unreimbursed expenses).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 241 F.3d 154, 163
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that "where a change in parties, necessary to the existence of jurisdiction, is appropriate and is made (even on or after appeal
citation_b.sentence: Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Lloyd’s & Cos., 241 F.3d 154, 163 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that “where a change in parties, necessary to the existence of jurisdiction, is appropriate and is made (even on or after appeal), appellate courts have acted as if the trial court had jurisdiction from the beginning of the litigation”); Berkshire Fashions, Inc. v. The M.V.