§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America, ex rel Michael J. Fisher v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint

8 Cited authorities

  1. Jacobsen v. Osborne

    133 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that where change in naming parties was not the result of mistake, i.e., misidentification or misnomer, but because the plaintiff did not originally know the identity of the defendant, the relation-back doctrine does not apply

  2. Matter of Southmark Corp.

    88 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 349 times
    Holding a court, when determining whether to grant leave to amend, may consider the failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed and futility of the proposed amendment

  3. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.

    952 F.2d 841 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 319 times
    Holding the proposed amendment would have radically altered the nature of a trial on the merits because it would have established an entirely new factual basis for plaintiffs' claims

  4. Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc.

    210 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2000)   Cited 169 times
    Holding the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add state law claims based on the same facts alleged in the initial complaint

  5. State of La. v. Litton Mortg. Co.

    50 F.3d 1298 (5th Cir. 1995)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that "Congress did not intend to create a private remedy" for violations of 12 U.S.C. § 2609

  6. Prevmed, Inc. v. MNM-1997, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2856 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 8, 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Denying motion for leave to tardily amend and assert counterclaims, per Rule 16(b), and stating, "In addition to failing to explain its delay (both in conducting discovery and seeking leave to assert original counterclaims), FCL fails to demonstrate that allowing the proposed counterclaims to be asserted at this late date would not unduly prejudice the plaintiffs."

  7. Transplace Tex. LP v. Alioto

    Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00647 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2017)

    Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00647 03-02-2017 TRANSPLACE TEXAS LP v. DAVID ALIOTO, PROBITY ENTERPRISES, INC. Judge Mazzant Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings (Dkt. #32). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion. BACKGROUND In this dispute Transplace Texas LP ("Transplace") alleges fraud and breach of contract against Probity Enterprises, Inc. ("Probity") and its President and sole shareholder

  8. Section 202.5 - General approval standards

    24 C.F.R. § 202.5   Cited 9 times   3 Legal Analyses

    To be approved for participation in the Title I or Title II programs, and to maintain approval, a lender or mortgagee shall meet and continue to meet the general requirements of paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section (except as provided in § 202.10(b) ) and the requirements for one of the eligible classes of lenders or mortgagees in §§ 202.6 through 202.10 . (a)Business form. (1) The lender or mortgagee shall be a corporation or other chartered institution, a permanent organization having succession