Tai Kwan Cureton v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

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 district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-judgment motion to amend when it concluded defendant would be prejudiced because of undue delay. “(1) the motion was filed three years after the complaint was filed; (2
• stating that “the question of undue delay requires that we focus on the movant’s reasons for not amending sooner”
• noting that the Third Circuit has “considered whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defendant against new facts or new theories”
• finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend where the district court determined that the “‘proposed amendment would essentially force the [defendant] to begin litigating this case again.’”
• affirming district court’s decision to deny a proposed amendment that would “fundamentally alter” the litigation
• considering “whether 12 allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend against new facts or new theories”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).