Somascan, Inc. v. Philips Medical Systems Nederland, B.V.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming denial of leave to amend that was filed after summary judgment because no new evidence was offered
• affirming district court’s denial of motion to amend where “[n]o new evidence was alleged to have been uncovered and no excuse was offered”
• describing the additional burden for plaintiff to overcome “when leave to amend is sought after discovery has been completed and a motion for summary judgment has been filed by a defendant.”
• “[T]he longer a plaintiff delays, the more likely the motion to amend will be denied, as protracted delay, with its attendant burdens on the opponent and the court, is itself a sufficient reason for the court to withhold permission to amend”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).