James B. Royal v. Leading Edge Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “action does not ‘arise under’ the federal copyright laws merely because it relates to a [work] that is the subject of a copyright”
• “[R]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be 2 applied with extreme liberality.”
• “[I]f the royalty agreement stands, then the plaintiff’s sole remedy for the breach of it would be money damages—and the Copyright Act need not be construed.”
• first citing Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U.S. 308, 310 (1952); and then citing Chongris v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Andover, 811 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir. 1987)
• dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure 3 to comply with local rules
• dismissal proper where plaintiff “willfully failed to comply with pretrial 3 order”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).