Pat, a citizen of New York, filed a federal diversity action against Dan, a citizen of Arizona, for personal injuries and property damage suffered in an automobile collision in Arizona. The action was commenced in the only U.S. District Court in Arizona the day before the applicable statute of limitations expired. The action also named Roger as a defendant. He was a passenger in the car with Dan at the time of the accident. The complaint alleged that Roger (also an Arizona citizen) was the registered owner of the car. Process was served on Roger under FRCP 4(c) by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with Roger's father, Richard, at their home in Phoenix. Richard read the entire complaint to his son. One year later (and three months before the trial), Pat amends the complaint to change the name of the owner of the car to Richard (Pat having just discovered that Richard is the owner of the vehicle and that Arizona has a statute which makes the owner of a car liable for the negligent driving of a bailee with permission). The court dismissed the amended complaint as being barred by the Arizona statute of limitations.Which of the following statements is probably correct? Question 12Select one: a. The amended complaint should relate back to the original complaint, because service of process was physically delivered to Richard. b. The amended complaint should relate back to the original complaint, because it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the