Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group 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 decision that was issued five months before district court order—and after briefing had been completed—could not “constitute an intervening change in the law”
• explaining that Rule 59(e) motions “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued” (citation omitted)
• finding that amended complaint may not be based on evidence available prior to the judgment being reconsidered
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs third amended complaint with prejudice, where the plaintiff did not seek leave to amend the complaint and it “had a fair opportunity to present its case, but failed to do so.”
• affirming dismissal with prejudice after the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to amend the complaint and still failed to state a claim
• affirming the district court’s denial of Rule 59(e) motion to amend complaint when the plaintiffs had previously amended their complaint three times

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).