Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the district court properly considered a franchise agreement and other documents attached as exhibits to the complaint
• “Meehan failed to specify the proposed new allegations, and the district court was not required to engage in a guessing game.”
• “[T]he district court was not required to engage in a guessing game” when the plaintiffs failed to explain how they would amend the complaint to save their claims.”
• “[T]he district court was not required to engage in a guessing game.”
• “[T]he district court was not required to engage in a guessing game.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).