§Why CasetextPricing

Regan v. Schindler Elevator Corporation

REPLY to Response to 12 MOTION to Dismiss

12 Cited authorities

  1. Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. P. A.

    560 U.S. 538 (2010)   Cited 1,284 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim relates back where plaintiff misunderstood which entity was in charge of ship that allegedly caused injury

  2. Coons v. Industrial Knife Co., Inc.

    620 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2010)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that plaintiff forfeited Rule 15(c) argument by not raising it in opposition to defendant's post-judgment motion and that it could not "be ‘resurrected on appeal’ " (internal quotes and cites omitted)

  3. Berman v. Linnane

    434 Mass. 301 (Mass. 2001)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that in applying the factors under the Massachusetts fee-shifting statute at issue here, “a factor-by-factor analysis, although helpful, is not required”

  4. United States v. Caparotta

    676 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 61 times
    Defining "unlawful user" under § 922(g)

  5. Hahn v. Office & Prof'l Emps. Int'l Union

    107 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the second element of relation-back is satisfied where two entities are so "closely related in their business activities or linked in their corporate structure" that they have an "identity of interest"

  6. Cannonball Fund, Ltd. v. Dutchess Capital Management, LLC

    84 Mass. App. Ct. 75 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 34 times

    No. 12–P–876. 2013-08-2 CANNONBALL FUND, LTD., & others v. DUTCHESS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, & others. John F. Hagan, Jr., of Illinois, for the plaintiffs. Sanford F. Remz, Boston, for Sullivan Bille, P.C. WOLOHOJIAN John F. Hagan, Jr., of Illinois, for the plaintiffs. Sanford F. Remz, Boston, for Sullivan Bille, P.C. Matthew Iverson, Boston, for Dutchess Capital Management, LLC, & others. Present: CYPHER, RUBIN, & WOLOHOJIAN, JJ. WOLOHOJIAN, J. This is the second suit brought individually and derivatively

  7. Herrick v. Essex

    68 Mass. App. Ct. 187 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 15 times

    No. 06-P-334. November 14, 2006. February 7, 2007. Present: PERRETTA, COWIN, MILLS, JJ. Practice, Civil, Amendment, Complaint. Administrative Law, Judicial review. Jurisdiction, Judicial review of administrative action. A complaint filed by a plaintiff in Superior Court within the thirty-day time limit set forth by G. L. c. 30A, § 14(1), seeking review of a final agency action denying him retirement benefits, adequately complied with that statute despite the plaintiff's failure to name the proper

  8. Pessotti v. Eagle Mfg. Co.

    946 F.2d 974 (1st Cir. 1991)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that amendment should not have been allowed four years after limitations period expired, where key witness' testimony changed during that period

  9. Broner v. Flynn

    CIVIL ACTION No. 01-40027-CBS (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2004)   Cited 7 times
    In Broner v. Flynn, 311 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 2004), the plaintiff brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff of Worcester County and unnamed employees of the Worcester County Jail and House of Corrections for violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of injuries he sustained during an assault on another inmate.

  10. Creative Solutions Group, Inc. v. Pentzer Corporation

    199 F.R.D. 443 (D. Mass. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the obligation to comply with an order compelling discovery is not excused by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and noting that a separate motion for stay should be filed, but adding that merely moving for a stay does not effectuate a stay unless and until the stay is granted

  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 70,485 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Mass. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 425 times

    (a) Amendments. A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served and prior to entry of an order of dismissal or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely