Legal Opinion
J.S. McCarthy, Co. v. Brausse Diecutting & Converting Equipment, Inc.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided January 25, 2005No. Civ. No. 04-107-B-WPublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
WOODCOCK, District Judge.
Concluding that Rule 15(a) encourages a non-punctilious view of motions to amend pleadings and that Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement has been satisfied, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
J. S. McCarthy Co., Inc. (McCarthy) claims Brausse Diecutting & Converting Equipment, Inc. (Brausse) sold it a defective machine and delivered it late. On October 19, 2004, this Court granted Brausse’s Motion to Dismiss Count III — Breach of Implied Warranty, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Boyle v. Hasbro, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Kathleen McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
- Allendale Mutual Insurance v. RutherfordDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1998
- Sweeney v. Keystone Provident Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Darling's v. General Motors Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 2006
- Chao v. HalkoDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2021
- Charm Hospitality, LLC v. Nohayia Javed, et al.District Court, D. Nevada · 2026
- Crawley v. Clark County Detention CenterDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2022
- GS Holistic LLC v. HR LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2024
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.