Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.

4 Citing briefs

  1. Bishop v. Anderson et al

    RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave

    Filed June 5, 2018

    Leave to amend the complaint to add a new party should be denied where [*56] substantial prejudice would result to the opposing parties. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1969); Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945, 951-52 (6th Cir. 1987). Rose v. Davis, No.

  2. Shy, et al v. Navistar Int'l Corp, et al

    MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint Instanter and Memorandum in Support Thereof

    Filed August 21, 2013

    The grant or denial of a motion to amend lies within the discretion of the district court; however, the Sixth Circuit has stated that “there must be at least some significant showing of prejudice to the opponent if the motion is to be denied.” Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945, 951 (6th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted). A district court should consider the following factors when ruling on a plaintiff’s motion Case: 3:92-cv-00333-WHR Doc #: 432 Filed: 08/21/13 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 2001 4 to amend: (1) undue delay in filing the motion, (2) lack of notice to adverse parties, (3) whether the movant is acting in bad faith or with a dilatory motive, (4) failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, (5) the possibility of undue prejudice to adverse parties, and (6) whether the amendment is futile.

  3. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    Motion for leave to File First Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Patent Infringement and Breach of Contract

    Filed May 6, 2009

    The principle that leave to amend pleadings should be freely given is firmly established in the Sixth Circuit, and is based upon the policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits. Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945, 951 (6th Cir. 1986). As set forth above, Defendant has assumed the obligations of Sygnet under the 1998 Assignment Agreement, including its obligations under Section 8 of that agreement, pursuant to which the Assignors expressly agreed that, “they will not at any time, directly or indirectly, for their own benefit or for the benefit of any third party, disclose or divulge to any third party, or use for any purpose, any of the Assigned Assets without the prior written consent of the Assignee.”

  4. Bert, et al v. AK Steel Corporation

    REPLY to Response to 41 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Request for Ruling Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of January 21, 2004 Order and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint

    Filed December 19, 2004

    Given the Defendant=s responses to Plaintiffs= requests for Title VII discovery, i.e., that they would not produce discovery on this claim unless and until the Court ruled on the Plaintiffs= Motion to Amend its Complaint, and the procedural posture of this case, the Plaintiffs have had no basis upon which to file a Motion to Compel this discovery. In Janikowski v. Bendix Corporation, 823 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1987), the Sixth Circuit overturned the denial of a Motion to Amend a Complaint and extended discovery so that the plaintiff could complete discovery on the claim that had been added. Janikowski had filed for leave to amend his complaint within the deadline for such motions, but the district court had granted summary judgment as to the claims pled without considering the Motion for Leave to Amend or the plaintiff’s request for Extension of Discovery on the new claim.