Drobnak v. Andersen Corp.

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 district court has the discretion to deny a request to amend a complaint “when plaintiff has not moved to amend [or] submitted a proposed amended pleading” and “the record did not indicate what one might have contained”
• explaining that the district court’s discretion is “considerable” because “such motions are disfavored” (citation omitted)
• noting that a plaintiff must plead an affirmative act or statement to establish fraudulent concealment
• concluding a district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies leave to amend where a plaintiff does not comply with Local Rule 15.1 of the District of Minnesota
• barring equitable recovery for failure to adhere to statutory notice and Rule 9(b) pleading requirements
• explaining that no claim for unjust enrichment lies when an adequate legal remedy exists even if such a remedy were foreclosed by a party’s failure to meet the statutory notice and Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., pleading requirements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).