Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc.

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 denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion
• explaining that federal preclusion principles apply when a prior federal decision was decided under federal question jurisdiction
• finding additional expert report was a timely served supplemental report because it “did not offer any new opinion or general criticism not previously given” and was based on “an additional literature search” and “laboratory tests” conducted during discovery
• \[W]e review claims of error raised and decided in an in limine motion as long as the district court's ruling was definitive.\
• “A district court may find undue delay when the movant knew of facts supporting the new claim long before the movant requested leave to amend, and amendment would further delay the proceedings.”
• two years after the complaint was filed, and after the close of discovery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).