D., AMODEA, MTR. OF

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that leave to amend a pleading need not be granted where the amendment would be futile
• explaining that leave to amend complaints should not be granted if the proposed amendment would be futile
• affirming district court’s denial of motion to compel filed four months after deadline to complete discovery
• denying a motion because it was filed four months after the discovery deadline had passed
• collecting cases in which “courts have denied discovery motions filed after the close of discovery” and “[r]eviewing courts have also affirmed the denial of untimely motions to compel”
• interpreting Michigan law in the context of the “long history of the statute of frauds” whereby a signature included “any notation signifying adoption or assent to be bound” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).