Russell Wayne Anderson v. Usair, Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “phrasing a statute in general terms rather than specifically identifying the benefited class indicates a lack of intent to create a private right of action.”
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint as the proposed claims were based on facts known to the plaintiff prior to the completion of discovery
• finding that the plaintiff's \Fifth Amendment claim fails because [the] private corporation[ ] is not a state actor.\
• finding that the plaintiff’s “Fifth Amendment claim fails because [the] private corporation[] is not a state actor.”
• affirming the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint where the amendments “were based on facts known prior to the completion of discovery”
• affirming denial of leave to amend when “counts were based on facts known prior to . . . discovery” and new fact “bear[s] only tangential relation to the underlying incident”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).