Paula Kuyat v. BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when the complaint included only a one-sentence, alternative request
• adding that a “request for leave to amend almost as an aside, to the district court in a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss is . . . not a motion to amend”
• affirming the denial of a request for leave to amend the complaint because the plaintiffs “did not attach a copy of their amended complaint” to their briefing
• rejecting a recklessness claim where the FDA never declared that the “presence or 20 absence of statistically significant results in an analysis of the [treatment] population was the 21 FDA’s absolute requirement” (emphasis added)
• finding no abuse of discretion when a district court refused to allow a post-judgment amendment based on the plaintiffs’ argument that “they had no way of knowing that [a- letter] would factor heavily in the district court’s decision”
• finding the trial court’s decision to deny a plaintiff's motion to amend not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff did not present an adequate motion and did not attach a copy of his amended complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).