16 Cited authorities

  1. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.

    244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,400 times
    Holding that defendant was not estopped from raising untimely res judicata defense
  2. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton

    833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2,229 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to file fourth amended complaint
  3. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii

    902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 999 times
    Holding that plaintiffs are not entitled to amend to add claims that "advance different legal theories and require proof of different facts"
  4. Bowles v. Reade

    198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 715 times
    Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent
  5. Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.

    845 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 1,034 times
    Holding that amendment is futile if no set of facts can be proven under the amendment that would constitute a valid claim
  6. Kaplan v. Rose

    49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 501 times
    Holding that the CEO of small company had proved good faith by submitting an uncontradicted affidavit stating that he never directed anyone to make misstatements that he knew to be misleading
  7. United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.

    848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 131 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 9(b) requires allegations specifying "what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false"
  8. Acri v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

    781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 286 times
    Holding that accrual of cause of action was question of law when evidentiary facts regarding accrual were not in dispute
  9. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt

    939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 237 times
    Holding that an eight-month delay was unreasonable
  10. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation

    No. C-04-04708 VRW and Related Cases (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006)   Cited 34 times
    Rejecting proposed construction because it would simply "replace the present term with a more ambiguous one"