Jean E. Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court’s denial of motion to amend filed six months after the court’s amendment deadline and two months after the close of discovery
• affirming denial of motion for leave to amend where discovery had been completed and the proposed amendments would require additional discovery
• “granting the motion [for leave to amend] likely would have further delayed proceedings and prejudiced [defendant], which had completed discovery and would have had to conduct additional discovery . . .”
• affirming the denial of leave to amend where the moving party did not explain why she could not have included the proposed amended pleadings in her original complaint or her first amended complaint
• affirming the denial of leave to amend where the moving party offered no explanation for why she could not have included the proposed amended pleadings in her original complaint or her first amended complaint
• affirming the denial of leave to amend where the moving party offered no explanation for why she could not have included the proposed amended pleadings in her original complaint or her first amended complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).