Allegations in Complaint Relate Back to Summons with Notice When It Gives Adequate Notice of Those Claims

On October 13, 2024, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in UBS Ams. Inc. v. Impac Funding Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op. 33827(U), holding that allegations in a complaint related back to the date the Summons with Notice was filed because the Summons with Notice gave adequate notice of the claims, explaining:

The six-year statute of limitations applies to UBS’s claim for indemnification. Although the parties disagree as to the applicable accrual event, both parties set March 2016 as the accrual date for the indemnification claim, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations in March 2022. The parties, however, dispute when the indemnification claim was interposed. Impac Funding argues that the claim was interposed on June 2, 2022, when the complaint was filed. UBS argues that the indemnification claim was interposed when the summons with notice was filed on December 17, 2021.

An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice. If the complaint is not served with the summons, the summons shall contain or have attached thereto a notice stating the nature of the action and the relief sought. A claim relates back to the original pleading if the original pleading gives notice of the transactions, occurrences to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading. A new claim would not be barred if the claim relates-back to the transactions specified in the summons with notice under CPLR 203(f).

Here, the allegations in the summons with notice give notice of the indemnification claim based on the Impac Funding Agreement. Specifically, in the summons with notice UBS alleges that Impac sold mortgage loans to UBS Real Estate pursuant to certain purchase and servicing agreements, including without limitation the Novelle Agreement, and that in these agreements Impac made representations and warranties regarding the characteristics of the mortgage loans and agreed to indemnify UBS for losses stemming from claims that Impac’s loans did not comply with Impac’s representations and warranties regarding the mortgage loans. UBS also alleges that for some Relevant Transactions, including without limitation MALT 2005-6, Impac entered into indemnification agreements with UBS Real Estate and MASTR in which Impac agreed to indemnify UBS for losses relating to information Impac provided to UBS for purposes of the Offering Materials. UBS further alleges that the California actions settlement and related expenses are covered by the indemnity provisions of the purchase agreements and/or indemnification agreements entered into between UBS and Impac, and UBS is entitled to indemnification from Impac. Thus, the summons with notice is sufficient to put Impac Funding on notice of the indemnification claim under Impac Funding Agreement and MALT 2005-6 Indemnification Agreement.

(Internal quotations and citations omitted).

Stay Informed

Get email updates anytime we publish to one or all of our blogs.

Stay informed!
Sign up for email alerts and notifications here.
Read more about our Complex Commercial Litigation practice.