Legal Opinion
Arthur L Vitasek v. GEO Incorporated, et al.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided August 4, 2026No. 2:24-cv-00155Unknown
1Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Arthur L Vitasek, No. CV-24-00155-PHX-SHD (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 GEO Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending are pro se Plaintiff Arthur L. Vitasek’s second Motion for Leave of Court 16 to File an Amended Complaint, (“Second Motion to Amend”), (Doc. 177), and lodged 17 Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 178). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 18 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Second Motion to Amend be denied, 19 and the lodged Second Amended Complaint be stricken.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Morgal v. Maricopa County Board of SupervisorsDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2012
- C.F. Ex Rel Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Dyniewicz v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.