Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 5140-CS (Del. Ch. Aug. 7, 2012).  This Court of Chancery decision was the result of remand from a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court which was highlighted on these pages here, and which clarified the standard in Delaware for the review by the Court of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) – which the Delaware Supreme Court made clear is not the same as the standard applied based on federal rule of civil procedure 12(b)(6)–even though the Delaware rules of civil procedure are based on the federal rules.  See Cent. Mort. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mort. Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 541 (Del. 2011) [hereinafter Central Mortgage II.]

A key issue in this case dealt with those situations in which a amendment to a complaint will relate back to the original complaint for purposes of a statute of limitations analsyis. After remand, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add new breach of contract and implied covenant claims.

The Court of Chancery explained that the “law of the case” doctrine, and the Delaware Supreme Court opinion left no room to “re-dismiss” the original theories contained in the original complaint that was the subject of a prior appeal.  However, the Court did grant the motion to dismiss the new claims that were included in an amended complaint after the remand, based on the Delaware statute of limitations.