Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff lacked diligence under Rule 16(b) because it filed a motion to amend with information it had known for over a month
• holding that an opponent’s “stonewalling” of discovery requests did not excuse a party’s untimely motion to amend when the movant did not serve its interrogatory or depose the witness until both the amendment and discovery deadlines had passed
• stating that because Southern 9 Defendant’s Trademark/Service Mark Application contains a declaration from Thomas Christenberry regarding use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a
• finding lack of diligence where the plaintiff “dallied too long” by waiting over a month after discovering the need to amend before requesting leave
• upholding district court’s denial of motion to amend where the plaintiff failed “to show good cause why it did not amend its complaint before the amendment deadline imposed in the scheduling order or during extensions of that deadline”
• relying on the ACPA’s Senate Report, which “says nothing about those who hold onto a domain name to prevent a competitor from using it,” in determining that bad faith alone is not enough; the same must be accompanied by an intent to profit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).