E.D. New York· 9/9/2011
Addison v. Reitman Blacktop, Inc.
Citations
- 283 F.R.D. 74
- 2011 WL 4336693
- 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106150
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that a document introduced by defendant as “an attack on the factual validity of the Plaintiff’s claims” is not appropriate for consideration on a motion to dismiss or a motion to amend
- applying Rule 15(c) relation back principles to a Rule 21 motion to add a party
- “A proposed amendment to add defendants may be considered futile ‘if the claims sought to be added are barred by the relevant statute of limitations.’”
- “Where, as here, a proposed amendment adds new parties, the propriety of amendment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.”
- “argument [that] is simply an attack on the factual validity of the Plaintiffs’ claims . . . is irrelevant to the Court’s motion to amend analysis”
- “A proposed amendment to add defendants may be considered futile if the claims sought to be added are barred by the relevant statute of limitations.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Spatt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Roman v. Guapos III, Inc.D. Maryland· 2013-09-06· cited 39×
- Castellanos v. Raymours Furniture Co.E.D. New York· 2018-03-12· cited 24×
- Shu Qin Xu v. Wai Mei HoE.D. New York· 2015-06-15· cited 20×
- Shearon v. Comfort Tech Mechanical Co.E.D. New York· 2013-03-28· cited 17×
- Polanco v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc.S.D. New York· 2014-06-03· cited 16×
- Neal v. WilsonS.D. New York· 2017-03-09· cited 15×
- Chaohui Tang v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc.E.D. New York· 2016-09-28· cited 11×
- A.V.E.L.A., Inc. v. Estate of MonroeS.D. New York· 2014-07-24· cited 9×
- Morangelli v. Chemed Corp.E.D. New York· 2013-02-04· cited 9×
- Jackson v. Art of Life, Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2011-12-12· cited 8×
Cites
28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court· 1962-12-03· cited 17,205×
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court· 1974-04-17· cited 13,385×
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C.Second Circuit· 2010-10-07· cited 1,722×
- Ruotolo v. City of New YorkSecond Circuit· 2008-02-06· cited 1,344×
- Edward E. Lucente, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeSecond Circuit· 2002-11-04· cited 951×
- KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. ASupreme Court· 2010-06-07· cited 866×
- Zahra v. Town Of SoutholdSecond Circuit· 1995-02-21· cited 361×
- Todd v. Exxon Corp.Second Circuit· 2001-12-20· cited 361×
- Susan A. Desiderio v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.Second Circuit· 1999-09-22· cited 279×
- Mary COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARROWSMITH SHELBURNE, INC., KDT Industries, Inc., and Clifton Lind, Defendants-AppelleesSecond Circuit· 1995-11-08· cited 269×
- Jennifer Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC and Sanford Pankin, Also Known as Crystal Hills, Docket No. 04-3807 CvSecond Circuit· 2005-09-30· cited 174×
- Lee v. ABC Carpet & HomeS.D. New York· 2006-05-22· cited 135×
- Aetna Casualty And Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co.Second Circuit· 2005-02-01· cited 121×
- Hermine Hanlin v. Marvin M. MitchelsonSecond Circuit· 1986-07-09· cited 88×
- Richard J. MacKensworth v. S.S. American MerchantSecond Circuit· 1994-06-16· cited 88×
- Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp.S.D. New York· 2010-01-08· cited 74×
- Soler v. G & U, Inc.S.D. New York· 1980-05-07· cited 64×
- DeSilva v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.E.D. New York· 2011-03-16· cited 62×
- Zhong v. August August Corp.S.D. New York· 2007-07-23· cited 49×
- Fair Housing Development Fund Corp. v. BurkeE.D. New York· 1972-06-02· cited 43×
Other cases named Addison v. Reitman Blacktop, Inc.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.