Unique Industries, Inc. v. 965207 Alberta Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was undue delay and prejudice because the motion for leave to amend was filed “after the close of discovery and after the submission of motions for summary judgment”
• holding that plaintiff’s delay in moving for leave to amend was undue where plaintiff discovered new, relevant evidence after discovery, but exhibited a “lack of diligence in investigating its case,” and summary judgment briefing had already concluded
• finding that “[t]he plaintiffs failure to seek leave to amend until after the close of discovery and the submission of summary judgment briefs constitutes an unjustifiable lack of diligence that plainly weighs against granting leave to amend”
• finding that “[t]he plaintiff’s failure to seek leave to amend until after the close of discovery and the submission of summary judgment briefs constitutes an unjustifiable lack of diligence that plainly weighs against granting leave to amend”
• \[T]he Federal Rules authorize the court to ... prohibit the plaintiff from relying on the evidence produced after the close of discovery as a sanction for its failure to comply with the court's scheduling order.\
• counsel’s delay in production suggested lack of diligence in investigating issues

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).