Swinford v. Lisath

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a good cause analysis under Rule 16(b)(4) certifies that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend
• finding that a continuance would not avoid inevitable prejudice to defendants in increasing litigation costs and delaying the case
• noting that the more liberal Rule 15(a) standard applies only after a party shows good cause for modifying the scheduling order
• noting that the more liberal Rule 15(a) standard applies only after a party shows good cause for modifying the scheduling order
• stating that courts evaluating good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) look at “(1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4
• affirming district court’s finding that an untimely amendment would unduly prejudice the defendant and “extend the litigation needlessly”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).