Mini Spas, Inc. v. South Salt Lake City Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the fifth factor which courts are to consider is whether the need for additional discovery was foreseeable in light of the scheduling order that the Court established
• noting that the first two factors in deciding to reopen discovery are whether the trial is imminent and the request is opposed
• stating that a client is bound by his lawyer’s representation “when the lawyer (or the client) makes a tactical decision and his noncompliance with the court’s directive is not a product of inadvertence.”
• finding this factor weighed towards denial of movant’s request to reopen discovery when movant “sought extensions of discovery immediately prior to scheduled trial settings and on the morning of trial.”
• explaining the reasoning behind this general rule is to ensure clients and lawyers take care to comply with the court’s rules and orders, and “any rule which considered the client’s lack of fault would be to visit the sins of client’s counsel on the opposing counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).