Holding that a "single sentence, lacking a statement for the grounds for amendment and dangling at the end of [appellant's] memorandum, did not rise to the level of a motion for leave to amend" and that motion for leave to amend was therefore "never properly before" district court
Finding no constitutional impediment in permitting non-Californians a right of action under a domestic statute because California had a "clear and substantial interest in preventing fraudulent practices in this state," or in "extending state-created remedies to out-of-state parties harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California."
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add an additional party because the motion, which was filed near the close of discovery, was tardy and the plaintiff lacked any sufficient excuse for delaying so long before moving for leave to amend
191 Cal.App.3d 605 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 96 times
Holding trial court erred in denying motion to certify nationwide class without conducting choice of law analysis, where "alleged fraudulent misrepresentations forming the basis of the claim of every [class member] emanated from California"; observing that "California's more favorable laws may properly apply to benefit nonresident plaintiffs when their home states have no identifiable interest in denying such persons full recovery"
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