Acosta-Mestre v. Hilton International of Puerto Rico, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that undue delay, standing alone, is enough to deny a plaintiff’s motion to amend after the deadline in the scheduling order has passed
• finding a 15-month time lapse between the original complaint and amended complaint untimely especially when discovery was nearly concluded and a pretrial order had been approved
• affirming district court decision to deny second amendment to complaint, requested fifteen months after initial complaint had been filed over a year .after the first amendment, because defendants would be prejudiced by amendment
• affirming denial of the motion to amend in part because the plaintiff was aware or should have been aware of the additional defendant at the time of the filing of the initial complaint
• affirming denial of a motion to amend that would have prejudiced Hilton by resulting in “a re-opening of discovery with additional costs, a significant postponement of trial, and a likely major alteration in trial strategy and tactics”
• “Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy seeks to serve justice, but does not excuse a lack of diligence that imposes additional and unwarranted burdens on an opponent and the courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).