Eastern Minerals & Chemicals Co. Cary W. Ahl, Sr. v. Gary H. Mahan

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend where the plaintiff waited more than six months after the scheduling order cutoff
• holding that creditor’s alter-ego claim was not barred by the chapter 11 discharge of corporation’s debts and remanding for creditor’s alter-ego claim to proceed in the district court
• holding that creditor’s alter-ego claim was not barred by the chapter 11 discharge of corporation’s debts and remanding for creditor’s alter-ego claim to proceed in the district court
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff failed to show “good cause” to modify a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4)
• holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a “motion to amend [a plaintiff’s] complaint six months after the amendment and joinder deadlines had expired”
• concluding the district court “acted well within its discretion when it denied [the plaintiff’s] motion to amend the complaint six months after the amendment” deadline had expired

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).