In Re Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding AHFC was a secondary defendant, in part, because “AHFC’s alleged liability stems from permitting this conduct and benefitting from it in the form of additional interest payments”
• finding no abuse of discretion when district court denied Rule 546(d) motion because 22 non-movant provided only conclusory statements to support more time for discovery
• finding no abuse of discretion when district court denied Rule 546(d) motion because 23 non-movant provided only conclusory statements to support more time for discovery
• finding no abuse of 2 | discretion when district court denied Rule 56(d) motion because non-movant provided only 3 | conclusory statements to support more time for discovery
• “AHFC’s liability depends on a ‘threshold finding’ that the Dealership Defendants acted unlawfully, demonstrating that AHFC is a secondary defendant.”
• dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).