Legal Opinion
Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided June 16, 1999No. S-98-1549 GEB DADPublishedCited by 271 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER *
BURRELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend her Complaint, stating that “the Court ordered that amendment of the pleadings would be permitted for good cause,” but arguing solely that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)’s1 standards support her motion. Pl.’s Mot. at 2. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that because Plaintiffs proposed amendment includes new claims, Defendants would suffer prejudice should the requested amendment be allowed. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
Plaintiffs motion fails to recognize that the liberal amendment standard set…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- In the Matter of the Sanction of Jay C. Baker and Michael J. Carson, George Roland Mulvaney v. Rivair Flying Service, Inc. v. Ed Dietlin, D/B/A Dietlin Aircraft, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Lynne Koplove and Jay S. Koplove v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Ricardo Luis JAUREGUI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF GLENDALE, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Forstmann v. CulpDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by271 opinions
- Morgal v. Maricopa County Board of SupervisorsDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2012
- Sharp v. Covenant Care LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2012
- Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Dag Enterprises Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
266 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.