Legal Opinion

Wojtarowicz v. University of Arkansas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided August 5, 2022No. 4:21-cv-00906Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION HEATHER WOJTAROWICZ PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:21-CV-00906-BSM UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, AKA UNIVERSITY OF ARKANAS – LITTLE ROCK (“UALR”), UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK ALUMNI ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS ORDER Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint [Doc. No. 9] is denied because amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis,

371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962) (futility of amendment permissible reason to deny leave to amend). “A proposed amendment is futile if…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Moss v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API