Dave v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “§ 1981 claim relates back to the original complaint, and is not barred by the statute of limitations” because “[t]he amended complaint contains no new factual allegations upon which the plaintiff seeks to base his proposed § 1981 claims”
• prejudice may exist when the amendment would “expand the allegations beyond the scope of the initial complaint”
• “[T]he burden of undertaking discovery, standing alone, does not warrant denial of a motion to amend.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).