Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that leave to amend does not allow a plaintiff to assert “new and different claims not raised in the original complaint”
• holding that an amendment prejudices the other party when the amendment would require additional discovery because it “advance[s] different legal theories and require[s] proof of different facts”
• holding that prejudice and undue delay are 22 sufficient to deny leave to amend
• noting that a motion to amend may be denied as futile
• affirming denial of leave to amend where additional claims “advance different 24 legal theories and require proof of different facts”
• affirming denial of leave to amend where additional claims “advance different 17 legal theories and require proof of different facts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).