E.J.T. v. Jefferson County
District Court, D. Oregon
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION E.J.T., Case No. 3:20-cv-01990-MO Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER JEFFERSON COUNTY et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., After nearly three years of litigation and multiple opportunities, Plaintiff E.J.T. for the first time moves to amend his complaint—in ways that he was or should have been aware of, are barred by the principles of estoppel, and are futile under the law of the case. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require courts to “freely give leave” to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But they are only required…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison James Rowland, Director of the California Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Harry Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Louis Eugene Russell v. Tom Rolfs, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Frank Howey v. United States of America, and Third-Party v. Radio Corporation of America, Third-Party v. Universal Services, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.