Googerdy v. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University

How courts have described this case

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

• denying a motion to amend as prejudicial when the “proposed amendment” was “brought solely to circumvent Defendant’s motion to dismiss.” (citing Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)
• denying motion to amend where proposed amendment was brought “solely to circumvent” a motion to dismiss and collecting authority for the proposition that “courts look disfavorably on motions to amend brought for the purpose of circumventing dispositive motions”
• denying motion to amend where proposed amendment was brought “solely to circumvent” a motion to dismiss and collecting authority for the proposition that “courts look disfavorably on motions to amend brought for the purpose of circumventing dispositive motions”
• finding a state university immune from punitive damages under § 1981a(b)(1)
• finding no at-will employment when a term contract was not renewed
• “Plaintiff's motion to amend is the second of its kind brought while a motion to dismiss was pending,” noting “delay,” and noting “prejudice[]” to “newly-named defendants”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).