21 Cited authorities

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 28,629 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
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.
316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,890 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
572 U.S. 663 (2014) Cited 502 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that laches is not a defense to damages for copyright infringement
United States ex rel. Lee v. Corinthian Colls.
655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,488 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that this Court "can affirm a 12(b) dismissal 'on any ground supported by the record, even if the district court did not rely on the ground.'" (quoting Livid Holdings, Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 950 (9th Cir. 2005))
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.
244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,912 times
Holding that defendant was not estopped from raising untimely res judicata defense
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
Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty.
708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 575 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that leave to amend should be permitted absent "strong evidence" of delay, bad faith, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, prejudice, or futility
Eclectic Properties East, LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.
751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 451 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations are not plausible unless plaintiffs allege "facts tending to exclude the possibility that the [defendant's] explanation is true."
Precision Co. v. Automotive Co.
324 U.S. 806 (1945) Cited 1,062 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that clean-hands doctrine "presupposes [a court of equity's] refusal ... to be the ‘abetter of iniquity’ " (quoting Bein v. Heath , 47 U.S. 228, 247, 6 How. 228, 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848) )
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.
437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 410 times
Holding that because a district court's judgment is "final" for purpose of res judicata, a subsequent state court decision was not a bar to the appeal
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,557 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

Oracle America, Inc. v. Terix Computer Company, Inc., et al

21 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

Holding that laches is not a defense to damages for copyright infringement

Holding that this Court "can affirm a 12(b) dismissal 'on any ground supported by the record, even if the district court did not rely on the ground.'" (quoting Livid Holdings, Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 950 (9th Cir. 2005))

Holding that defendant was not estopped from raising untimely res judicata defense

Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent

Holding that leave to amend should be permitted absent "strong evidence" of delay, bad faith, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, prejudice, or futility

Holding that allegations are not plausible unless plaintiffs allege "facts tending to exclude the possibility that the [defendant's] explanation is true."

Holding that clean-hands doctrine "presupposes [a court of equity's] refusal ... to be the ‘abetter of iniquity’ " (quoting Bein v. Heath , 47 U.S. 228, 247, 6 How. 228, 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848) )

Holding that because a district court's judgment is "final" for purpose of res judicata, a subsequent state court decision was not a bar to the appeal

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