Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Golas v. Homeview, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided February 10, 1997No. 96-1696Published

1ConcurrenceBownes, Senior Circuit Judge

I concur in the result, but, with respect, I do not think that this case can be disposed of by the conclusory assertion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint so as to add Ellen Kaplan as a defendant. In his report and recommendation, adopted by the district court, the magistrate judge stated the following reason for denying the motion to amend the complaint:

I find that Plaintiff[’s] attempt to add Ellen Kaplan as a party defendant and to assert against her a claim for misrepresentation would be futile because such a claim…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Koon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API