Legal Opinion
Dove v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 30, 2004No. CIV.A.03-2156(RMU)PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
URBINA, District Judge.
Granting the Dependant’s Motion to Amend
I. INTRODUCTION
At this formative stage, the instant wrongful termination case subscribes to the idea of second chances. Before the court is the defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to the complaint with the affirmative defense of res judicata. The plaintiff challenges the proposed amendment on the grounds of undue delay and undue prejudice. Given that neither of the claimed bases exist for denying the proposed amendment, the court grants the defendant leave to amend its answer pursuant to Federal Rule…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Myrna O'Dell Firestone v. Leonard K. FirestoneCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Crist v. BretzSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- John W. Dussouy, Jr. v. Gulf Coast Investment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Nurriddin v. GoldinDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Nwachukwu v. KarlDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Abdullah v. WashingtonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- City of Moundridge v. Exxon Mobil Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Rhodes v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.