In Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010), plaintiff Wanda Krupski tripped on board a cruise ship and fractured her femur. The carrier and operator of the ship was Costa Crociere, while Costa Cruise Lines was its "North American sales and marketing agent." Krupski, 130 S. Ct. at 2490-91. The plaintiff filed suit against Costa Cruise Lines in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Following the expiration of the statute of limitations period, Costa Cruise Lines informed the plaintiff that Costa Cruise Lines was not the proper defendant and that Costa Crociere was the carrier and operator. Id. The District Court of Florida allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint and serve Costa Crociere. However, Costa Crociere argued that the filing of the amended complaint was time barred because it did not relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(c). The reasoning of the District Court of Florida was summarized by the United States Supreme Court: "Because Costa Cruise informed Krupski that Costa Crociere was the proper defendant in its answer, corporate disclosure statement, and motion for summary judgment, and yet Krupski delayed for months in moving to amend and then in filing an amended complaint, the court concluded that Krupski knew of the proper defendant and made no mistake." Id. at 2492. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. In pertinent part, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Krupski chose to sue Costa Cruise Lines rather than Costa Crociere because her passenger ticket "clearly identified Costa Crociere as the carrier, the court stated Krupski either knew or should have known of Costa Corciere's identity as a potential party." Id. In reversing, the Supreme Court of the United States first clarified that the proper question under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) is "whether the defendant named in the amended complaint knew or should have known that it would have been named as a defendant but for an error." Id. at 2493.