§Why CasetextPricing

Bamert et al v. Pulte Home Corporation et al.

MOTION for leave to file to File Third Amended Complaint

9 Cited authorities

  1. Foman v. Davis

    371 U.S. 178 (1962)   Cited 28,605 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

  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. Eldridge v. Block

    832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 1,921 times
    Holding that courts must liberally construe pleadings of pro se litigants

  4. Griggs v. Pace American Group

    170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 708 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that holder of contingent rights to receive stock had standing to bring federal securities claims

  5. Grayson v. K Mart Corp.

    79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 779 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an individual who did not file an EEOC charge may opt into an ADEA class action by "piggybacking" onto a timely charge filed by one of the named plaintiffs, provided that the claims of the named plaintiff and the piggybacking plaintiff arise out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame

  6. Boeing Company v. Shipman

    411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 1,995 times
    Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury

  7. Halliburton & Associates, Inc. v. Henderson, Few & Co.

    774 F.2d 441 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 127 times
    Holding proposed amendment was "futile" where proposed claims were "subject to the parties' agreement to arbitrate"

  8. McKinley v. Kaplan

    177 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that the "scheduling order apparently never was entered and therefore never became binding as necessary to trigger the operation of Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" and that "[i]n the absence of a dispositive scheduling order, whether leave to amend should be granted is governed by the more liberal standard set forth in Rule 15"

  9. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,448 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint