Palmer v. Champion Mortgage

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that three-business-day language rendered notice “crystal clear” where plaintiff received notice after the expiration date noted within notice had passed
• holding that “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice 27 so requires” (quotation marks omitted)
• holding that a rule 59(e) motion is “normally not a promising vehicle for revisiting a party’s case and rearguing theories previously advanced and rejected.”
• holding that a NORC that contained an rescission deadline that expired prior to the borrower having received the NORC was not defective or confusing because it expressly provided alternative deadlines in such an event
• holding that a district court may deny leave to amend when the request is characterized by “undue delay, bad faith, futility, [or] the absence of due diligence on the movant’s part”
• holding that a district court “had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint” fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).