16 Cited authorities

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

    244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,910 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 2,899 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to file fourth amended complaint
  3. Bowles v. Reade

    198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 953 times
    Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent
  4. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii

    902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 1,313 times
    Holding that plaintiffs are not entitled to amend to add claims that "advance different legal theories and require proof of different facts"
  5. Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.

    845 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 1,302 times
    Holding that amendment is futile if no set of facts can be proven under the amendment that would constitute a valid claim
  6. United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.

    848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 334 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 9(b) requires allegations specifying "what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false"
  7. Kaplan v. Rose

    49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 548 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
  8. Acri v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

    781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 370 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 310 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 42 times
    Rejecting proposed construction because it would simply "replace the present term with a more ambiguous one"