Coker v. Wells

How courts have described this case

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

• denying plaintiffs “another bite at the proverbial apple” where plaintiffs had the opportunity to, but failed to, cure for which they were on notice
• noting “[l]eave to amend is especially inappropriate” when plaintiff proposes amendments that were “merely recycled versions” of claims that “had already fallen victim to a motion to dismiss”
• denying leave to amend because plaintiffs failed to cure pleading deficiencies after prior dismissal and failed “to show how any amended complaint could cure the deficiencies” (emphasis added)
• “[T]he absence of ‘rights-creating language’ indicates a lack of congressional intent to create private rights of action.”
• no abuse of discretion in denying leave to 2 amend where plaintiff had “two previous opportunities” to do so
• “[T]he absence of ‘rights- creating language’ indicates a lack of congressional intent to create private rights of action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).