Mounts v. Corbin, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding good cause to amend the Complaint where the plaintiff filed the motion to amend a month after discovery of new evidence
• “Because Krupski does not address [the] isolated issue [of whether a plaintiff’s lack of knowledge as to the identity of ‘John Doe’ Defendants can be considered a mistake or error] … Barrow remains good law ….”
• “[A]fter the Plaintiffs ascertained the identity of Manual, they moved within about one month to amend the complaint to substitute him as a named party. Under these circumstances, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause under Rule 16(b) to modify the scheduling order[.]”
• “The statute of limitations for claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is also three years unless the claims arise out of a post-1990 Act of Congress such as the 1991 Amendments to § 1981 . . . in which case the statute of limitations is four years.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).