Edward E. Lucente, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that while “leave to amend a pleading ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’ . . . [o]ne appropriate basis for denying leave to amend is that the proposed amendment is futile.”
• reaffirming that a court’s role at the summary judgment stage “is not to weigh the evidence or resolve issues of fact”
• stating that courts may not deprive parties of the right to file responses to amended pleadings
• noting that amendment is futile if “the proposed claim could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”
• reaffirming that a court’s role at the summary judgment stage “is not to weigh the evidence or resolve issues of fact”
• noting that leave to amend may be denied when amendment is “unlikely to be productive,” such as when an amendment is “futile” and “could not withstand a motion to dismiss [under] Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).