In the Matter of Southmark Corporation, Debtor. Southmark Corporation v. Schulte Roth & Zabel

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming denial of motion to amend where plaintiff sought to add claim that it had knowledge of for almost a year and stating that “[l]iberality in pleading does not bestow on a litigant the privilege of neglecting her case for a long period of time”
• affirming the district court’s denial of leave to amend when the party “sought leave to add . . . a fact of which it had been aware since before it filed its original complaint . . . eleven months after the first amended complaint was filed”
• first quoting H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, at 309 (1977); and then quoting S.Rep. No. 95-989, at 22 (1978)
• “Southmark offers no reasonable explanation for its delay in amending its complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).