In re P.T.D.

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 defendant may not proffer its own comparators for a plaintiff, but that plaintiffs may choose their own
• citing, inter alia, Parish v. Frazier, 195 F.3d 761, 763-64 (5th Cir.1999) and Material Supply Int’l, Inc. v. Sunmatch Indus. Co., 146 F.3d 983, 991 (D.C.Cir.1998)
• granting defendant’s motion to amend its answer and raise affirmative defenses upon a finding that doing in that case “would not cause unfair surprise or unreasonably broaden the issues”
• finding a nine-month delay as “insufficient grounds to deny a motion to amend”
• “Undue prejudice may be found when an amended pleading would cause unfair surprise to the opposing party, unreasonably broaden the issues, or require additional discovery.”
• “Plaintiffs need to conduct additional discovery is reasonable and regrettable[ ] but is not sufficient justification to cut off [d]e-fendant’s right to assert its affirmative defenses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).