Legal Opinion

City of Biddeford v. Maine Energy Recovery Co., LP

District Court, D. Maine

Decided May 20, 2004No. 03-279-P-SPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

David M. COHEN, United States Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff, City of Biddeford (“Bidde-ford”), moves for leave to amend its first amended complaint to add new factual allegations, but no new counts. The defendant opposes the motion, contending that the proposed amendments would be futile. I grant the motion.

I. Applicable Legal Standard

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” This directive is tempered by the principle that leave to make…

2Cases cited12 opinions

Hallstrom v. Tillamook CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
Glassman v. Computervision Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc., Friends of the Earth in No. 93-5721 v. Hercules, Inc. In No. 93-5720Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Stroh Die Casting Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997

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

3Cited by2 opinions

Hernandez v. ESSO STANDARD OIL CO.(PUERTO RICO)District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2008
Natural Resources Council of Maine v. International Paper Co.District Court, D. Maine · 2006