Denise Sanders v. Venture Stores, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff’s failure to explain why the amendment did not take place sooner supported the district court’s denial of a motion to amend
• upholding the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint on the grounds of undue delay and prejudice even though the district court did not address those issues
• affirming denial of leave to amend after close of discovery and summary judgment briefing where plaintiffs “offered no explanation whatsoever for the delay”
• affirming denial of leave to amend after close of discovery and summary judgment briefing where plaintiffs “offered no explanation whatsoever for the delay”
• upholding the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint on the grounds of undue delay and prejudice even though the district court did not address those issues
• applying de novo review to district court’s denial of leave to amend complaint—a question typically reviewed for abuse of discretion—because “district court did not indicate that its denial of Plaintiffs’ motion . . . resulted from an exercise of its discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).