· 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 CourtListenerSourced 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.