United States Ex Rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that we review the district court’s futility determination de novo and its denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion
• holding that futility is a valid reason to dismiss with prejudice
• explaining that district courts have considerable discretion to deny post-judgment motions for leave to amend because such motions are disfavored
• noting that the plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 15.1 in concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
• upholding district court’s dismissal because the plaintiff alleged only violation of FDA medical-device-reporting regulations by selling defective products but did not allege that certification with these regulations was a prerequisite to payment
• affirming denial of post-judgment motion for leave to amend and noting that court is “not obligated to ferret out well-hidden changes in a post-judgment amended pleading without guidance from” the plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).