Carole Patricia ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding it was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion to refuse plaintiff to amend 4 his complaint after discovery was virtually complete and a motion for summary judgment was 5 pending
• affirming denial of motion to amend raised after discovery was “virtually complete” and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was pending before the court
• affirming district court where request 10 to amend complaint was raised at the eleventh hour, after discovery was virtually complete
• affirming denial of motion to amend raised after discovery was “virtually complete” and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was pending before the court
• affirming district court where request to amend complaint was “raised at the eleventh hour, after discovery was virtually complete and the Board's motion for 28 summary judgment was pending before the court”
• affirming a finding of undue prejudice where an additional issue “was raised at the eleventh hour, after discovery was virtually complete and the [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment was pending before the court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).