Skip to main content
· 8/29/2008

Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, LLC

Citations

  • 539 F.3d 545
  • 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1793
  • 71 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 765
  • 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18615
  • 91 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,328
  • 2008 WL 3981218

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that “[n]o abuse of discretion occurs when a district court denies a party leave to amend where such leave was never sought”
  • collecting cases for the proposition that a plaintiff is not entitled to amend their complaint where no motion to amend has been filed
  • upholding the district court’s decision not to grant leave to amend when the plaintiff failed to formally move despite being on notice that her complaint was subject to a Rule 12 motion to dismiss
  • upholding the district court’s decision not to grant leave to amend where the plaintiff failed to formally move to amend despite being on notice that her complaint was subject to a Rule 12 motion
  • upholding the district court’s decision not to grant leave to amend when the plaintiff failed to formally move despite being on notice that her complaint was subject to a Rule 12 motion to dismiss
  • upholding the district court’s decision not to grant leave to amend where the plaintiff failed to formally move to amend despite being on notice that her complaint was subject to a Rule 12 motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cole, Griffin, Sargus

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.