S&w Enterprises, L.L.C., a Nevada Limited Liability Company v. Southtrust Bank of Alabama, Na, an Alabama Banking Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that first factor “weigh[s] against [plaintiff] . . . because [plaintiff] offers effectively no explanation”
• holding that the first factor “weigh[s] against S&W . . . because S&W offers effectively no explanation”
• recognizing that district courts have the authority to manage their dockets and that, as a result, the decision to grant a continuance lies in the “judge’s sound discretion”
• holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for district court to deny untimely motion where party “offered no adequate explanation for its failure to comply with the scheduling order”
• holding that Rule 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings after expiration of the scheduling order deadline and only upon a showing of good cause will the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a) then apply
• concluding that the plaintiff failed to exercise diligence where “the same facts were known to [the plaintiff] from the time of its original complaint to the time it moved for leave to amend”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).