Curtis Hayes v. Larkin Street Homes, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• Recognizing that “a court choosing to modify the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, may do so only ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
• holding that courts may deny leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2
• explaining that the good cause analysis also includes consideration of potential prejudice to the non-movant
• finding that a court must also consider prejudice to the nonmovant if the movant satisfies “Rule 16’s explicit ‘good cause’ requirement”
• “[R]equiring that a party diligently attempt to meet the scheduling order’s deadlines before the deadline can be changed[.]” (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002))
• affirming district court’s refusal to find good cause where plaintiff was “obviously aware of the claim for many months” but failed to move to amend the complaint until defendant moved for summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).