Legal Opinion
Rent—A—Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Avenue Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 9, 2003No. 02 Civ. 00213(CM)PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR COUNTERCLAIM
MCMAHON, District Judge.
In the ordinary course, when a party moves to amend the pleadings after the deadline to do so in the court’s scheduling order has passed, that party must satisfy the good cause requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) — despite the lenient standard for amendment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) — before leave to amend may be granted. Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 339-40 (2d Cir.2000) (citations omitted). The reason for this is simple — scheduling orders are designed to offer a degree of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
3Cited by75 opinions
- Perfect Pearl Co. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Soroof Trading Development Co. v. Ge Microgen, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Bartels v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd HarborDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Enzymotec Ltd. v. NBTY, INC.District Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- City of Almaty v. AblyazovDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.