The trial court granted the motion, holding that: 1) the SAC should be struck because it was filed without leave of court, in violation of Mississippi rules; and 2) plaintiff’s claims against Hologic were barred by Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed, whereupon ensued a battle over the correct interpretation of Mississippi R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) provides that “a party may amend a pleading as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served” but otherwise must obtain leave of court or written consent of adverse parties. Plaintiff argued that her right to amend her complaint without leave or consent started over each time she filed a new complaint.

The MSSC granted cert and affirms the COA.Hammons’s amended complaint—fifteen pages longer than his original complaint—added new parties and new claims against those parties. As the amendment was not a substitution under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h), it does not relate back to the time of filing of the original complaint under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2). Further, the amended complaint was filed outside the statute of limitations, and Hammons’s claim is time-barred.

The Court does not buy this argument.An amended complaint is a pleading. Miss. R. Civ. P. 7(a); Miss. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because it is a pleading “subsequent to the original complaint,” its service falls squarely within the scope of Rule 5 with one exception – if an amended complaint adds new or additional claims and the new claims are against a party who is in default, then service must be made under Rule 4.