Legal Opinion
Hughes v. Nationwide Bank
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 17, 2019No. 2:18-cv-01235PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Mark R. Hornak, Chief United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Hughes's Motion to Amend/Correct *615his Complaint. (Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 45; Compl., ECF No. 1.) Because the Court concludes that a significant portion of the amendments in the Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC"), ECF No. 45-1, are futile, the Motion to Amend is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Defects
The Court initially notes that both the Complaint and the PAC contain a jurisdictional defect that must be addressed. The Complaint asserts subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- In Re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation. P. Gregory Buchanan, Jacob Turner and Ronald AbramoffCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Winston-Salem v. Northwest Child Development Centers, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2021