Baker v. Dolgencorp, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• granting a motion to add a claim of punitive damages after the amendment deadline as its basis was developed during discovery
• “Allowing a party to bring a motion to amend outside the applicable scheduling order’s deadline without showing that the party diligently tried but was unable to comply with that deadline would potentially undermine the[] fundamental principles of our civil justice system.”
• “In diversity actions such as this, the pleading of punitive damage claims must generally conform to the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 549.191.”
• “In other words, just because Target did not know certain information until later does not necessarily constitute good cause for allowing it leave to amend the complaint after the deadline.”
• “[W]hen a motion to amend is filed after the expiration of the applicable deadline in the Court’s Scheduling Order, Rule 15(a)’s permissive test no longer applies, and instead the tougher ‘good cause’ standard applies under Rule 16(b)(4).”
• “[W]hen a motion to amend is filed after the expiration of the applicable deadline in the Court’s Scheduling Order, Rule 15(a)’s permissive test no longer applies, and instead the tougher ‘good cause’ standard applies under Rule 16(b)(4).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).