Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(A)

559 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 337 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Wages v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  915 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's post-judgment order, finding that while the dismissal of IRS claims on the merits was erroneous, the dismissal of claims against individual defendants was not, and the imposition of sanctions was proper.
• Amendola v. Bayer
  907 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant on claims of breach of oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, nor in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't
  901 F.2d 696· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 14×
• Samuels v. Wilder
  871 F.2d 1346· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, denying a motion to amend the complaint, and enforcing the indemnity clause and counterclaim.
• W. Martin Haskell, M.D. v. Wash. Twp.
  864 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 14×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in their initial responsive pleading. The court also found that the district court's rulings on standing were conflicting and that the Rule 41(b) dismissal was subject to a clear
• Hoover v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Alabama
  855 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' interpretation of the co-payment provision was reasonable and entitled them to summary judgment, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Marks v. Shell OIL Co.
  830 F.2d 68· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without first considering the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint.
• Driscoll v. Smith Barney
  815 F.2d 655· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 14×
  Federal securities law claims and federal RICO claims are not subject to mandatory arbitration, while state law claims are. Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements are generally for the arbitrator, not the court.
• Senza-Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart
  803 F.2d 661· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that allowing a defendant to amend its pleadings to add patent misuse and antitrust defenses seven months after a jury verdict, without good cause shown, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc.
  801 F.2d 246· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that state common law claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation are preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act when they are inextricably intertwined with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Mosher v. Kane
  784 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint, alleging violations of federal securities laws, was improperly dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that leave to amend should be granted.
• The City OF Columbia v. Paul N. Howard Co.
  707 F.2d 338· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based solely on a disclaimer, as other contract provisions indicated the test boring logs could be relied upon for their accuracy, and a tort claim for misrepresentation should also be considered.
• Raynor Bros. v. Am. Cyanimid Co.
  695 F.2d 382· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the substitution of plaintiffs and relation back of the amended complaint, nor in denying post-trial motions challenging the jury's damage award.
• Jackson v. Stephen Salon
  614 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1980-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction and properly denied motions to amend and reconsider.
• McDONALD v. Hall
  579 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1978-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment regarding religious services but remanded the denial of the motion to amend for further consideration.
• McARTHUR v. S. Airways, Inc.
  556 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 14×
• The Wealden Corp. & Edward G. Uhl v. Schwey
  482 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 14×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its factual determinations, its denial of the Rule 41(b) motion, or its rulings on amendments to pleadings and counterclaims.
• Lloyd v. United Liquors Corp.
  203 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1953-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, as the alleged conspiracy to fix liquor prices could substantially affect interstate commerce.
• Bee Mach. Co., Inc. v. Freeman
  131 F.2d 190· 1st Cir.· 1942-11-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a federal court, after removing a state court action, can allow an amendment to add a claim over which the state court lacked jurisdiction but the federal court possesses, as long as the original action was properly removable. The court also held that a prior
• Drake v. City OF Fort Collins
  927 F.2d 1156· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 13×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate impact and failed to show pretext for disparate treatment under Title VII, and affirmed the dismissal of other claims.
• Consumers Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  804 F.2d 907· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the action barred by the statute of limitations and that the PMPA does not preempt all common law tort or misrepresentation claims.
• Moore v. City OF Paducah
  790 F.2d 557· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that denying a motion to amend a complaint solely based on unjustified delay, without a significant showing of prejudice to the opposing party, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Maryam Jamilah Zaidi v. Ehrlich
  732 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 13×
  A district court should grant a plaintiff leave to amend her complaint when she has a right to amend, even if she fails to attach the proposed amended complaint to the motion.
• Wolgin v. Simon
  722 F.2d 389· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 13×
  A shareholder must submit a proposed amendment with a motion for leave to amend a complaint to preserve the right to amend, and conclusory allegations of futility are insufficient to excuse a demand on shareholders.
• Pattiz v. Schwartz
  386 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1968-01-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had the power under Rule 60(a) to correct the record to reflect the nunc pro tunc filing of an amended complaint, as the omission was an oversight or clerical error.
• Blackburn v. Shire US Inc
  18 F.4th 1310· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding causation in the failure-to-warn claim, precluding summary judgment, and certified two unsettled questions of Alabama law to the state's Supreme Court.
• Kernal Records Oy v. Mosley
  794 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2011-06-07 ·cited 12×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that posting a work on the Internet constitutes publication and that such publication is simultaneous worldwide, making the work a 'United States work' subject to registration requirements under the Copyright Act.
• Oliver v. Resolution Tr. Corp.
  955 F.2d 583· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and its statutory counterpart preclude claims based on alleged oral side agreements that were not in writing and properly executed. The court also found no abuse of discretion in dismissing the claims with prejudice without leave to
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. M.D. Hardy, M.D.
  943 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in dismissing his suit under Rule 12(b)(6) without accepting his allegations of bias as true.
• Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., Ltd.
  918 F.2d 1446· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as an adequate alternative forum existed and private and public interest factors favored dismissal.
• R.A. Street v. Fair
  918 F.2d 269· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's sua sponte dismissal of the inmate's pro se complaint was precipitous and vacated the judgment.
• Newark Branch v. Town of Harrison
  907 F.2d 1408· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court properly dismissed the original complaint for lack of standing, it erred in denying the motion for leave to amend without considering the merits of the proposed amendment.
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. Hardy, M.D.
  905 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 12×
• Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A.
  899 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that dismissing a complaint without leave to amend, when leave was offered and no justifying reason was given, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Anderson v. Usair, Inc.
  818 F.2d 49· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 12×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that there is no implied private right of action under section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act for individuals to sue air carriers for violations of the duty to provide safe and adequate service. Furthermore, the court found no state action for constitutional cl
• J.E. Mamiye & Sons, Inc. v. The Fid. Bank V. Commonwealth Marine & Gen. Assurance Co., Ltd.
  813 F.2d 610· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 12×
  A motion for leave to amend a complaint may not be denied solely because the court believes the amended complaint would not survive a motion for summary judgment.
• Averbach v. Rival Mfg. Co.
  809 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff's complaint alleging common law fraud in discovery responses, filed as an independent action, should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage, and that the one-year time limit for Rule 60(b)(3) motions does not apply to such independent action
• Safir v. United States Lines Inc.
  792 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that section 810 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not provide an implied private right of action for restitution of subsidies paid by the government, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and modification of the injunction against futu
• Cooper v. Shumway
  780 F.2d 27· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend a complaint after a final judgment had been entered.
• Porter v. Beaumont Enter. & Journal
  743 F.2d 269· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 12×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Title VII race discrimination suit with prejudice due to the plaintiff's attorney's inexcusable delay and improper service of process.
• Atl. Purchasers, Inc. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc.
  705 F.2d 712· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district judge erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to seek treble damages under the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, as the jury's findings of fraud established a violation of the Act and treble damages are an automat
• Lemmon v. Cedar Point
  406 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 12×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a stock option agreement provision allowing termination of employment does not permit arbitrary discharge to evade stock option obligations, and dismissal of the claim was improper.
• Albee Homes, Inc. v. Meir Lutman
  406 F.2d 11· 3d Cir.· 1969-01-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims due to lack of final adjudication and affirmed the trial court's denial of leave to amend the pleadings regarding an affirmative defense due to undue delay.
• 222 E. Chestnut St. Corp. v. Lakefront Realty Corp.
  256 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff who appeals a dismissal, thereby electing to stand on their complaint, cannot subsequently seek to dismiss the appeal to amend the complaint with new theories not related to jurisdiction. The court also held that the cited statute does not grant a
• Fern v. United States
  213 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1954-05-18 ·cited 12×
• Stepp v. United States
  207 F.2d 909· 4th Cir.· 1953-11-09 ·cited 12×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the intentional use of excessive force by a government employee in making an arrest, resulting in death, constitutes an assault and battery barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that allowing an amended answer to raise this defense was not an abuse of dis
• Mitchell v. Wright
  154 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1946-04-24 ·cited 12×
  A state's judicial appeal process for voter registration denials is not a purely administrative remedy that must be exhausted before federal court intervention.
• Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp.
  289 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2002-04-23 ·cited 11×
  The concurring judge believes that a plaintiff who fails to amend their complaint in the district court, despite ample opportunity and notice of deficiencies, should not be granted a remand on appeal for that purpose. The judge argues that district courts should not be required t
• Thompson-El v. Jones
  876 F.2d 66· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant leave to file a second amended complaint, as the motion was untimely and would have caused undue delay and prejudice.
• Merritt v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  875 F.2d 765· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to amend based on federal notice requirements, and that the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the County was proper due to insufficient evidence of a policy of inadequate training.