Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party may demonstrate good cause to amend a pleading by showing that “despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met by the plaintiff.”
• holding that where a movant promptly sought leave to amend after learning new facts, a delay of “one year and seven months from the deadline for amendment until the filing of [a Rule 15] motion” did not constitute undue delay
• determining that where a motion to amend “is timely filed, only Rule 15’s liberal standard governs”
• finding that plaintiff moved diligently in seeking leave to amend two months after new facts were learned at deposition
• noting that “[c]ourts in this district -have concluded that Rule 16’s good cause standard is applicable to both” amendments that add “new allegations” and those . that “add a -new party”
• finding good cause met where plaintiff “did not know and could not reasonably have known” certain information

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).