Schmidt v. Shah

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to strike the pro se plaintiff’s supplemental filing because it was helpful to the court in understanding the plaintiff’s claims (citing Wada v. U.S. Secret Serv., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 9 (D.D.C. 2007))
• “Because these submissions were filed after Defendant submitted his reply brief, they are surreplies not authorized by the Local Rules.”
• “‘[I]t is . . . well-established that a victim of duress may be held to have ratified the agreement by accepting its benefits.’”
• “[W]here . . . the action is brought by a pro se plaintiff, the Court must take particular care to construe the plaintiff’s filings liberally.”
• “[T]he acceptance of benefits under the contract necessarily bars denial of its validity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).