No. 20-869

David E. Henry v. Castle Medical Center

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: circuit-split civil-procedure federal-rules-civil-procedure federal-rules-of-civil-procedure foman-standard foman-v-davis judicial-discretion motion-to-amend post-judgment-amendment rules-59-and-60 standards-for-amendment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity ERISA Securities EmploymentDiscrimina JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a district court must consider and decide on the merits a post-judgment motion for leave to amend the complaint

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In spite of this Court’s long-standing precedent that a post-judgment motion to amend the complaint must be decided under the same standards as a similar motion filed pre-judgment, the circuits are split in their treatment of a post-judgment motion. The Fourth and the Seventh Circuit apply the liberal standards for allowing amendments to pleadings consistent with this Court’s precedent. The Ninth and the Eleventh Circuits hold that the court may not consider a post-judgment motion to amend unless the judgment is first vacated. 1. Whether a district court must consider and decide on the merits a post-judgment motion for leave to amend the complaint when the motion is made within a timely filed motion to alter, amend or set aside the judgment under Rules 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the liberal standard for allowing amendments to pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to a postjudgment motion for leave to amend the complaint made in a timely filed motion to alter, amend or set aside the judgment under Rules 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 3. Whether the decision below denying the Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend his complaint is in direct conflict with this Court’s decision in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), as well as the decisions of several circuit courts of appeals.

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-14
Reply of petitioner David Henry filed. (Distributed)
2021-04-12
Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until June 16, 2021 granted.
2021-04-09
Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from April 14, 2021 to June 16, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-30
Brief of respondent Castle Medical Center in opposition filed.
2021-01-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 30, 2021.
2021-01-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 29, 2021 to March 30, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-12-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Castle Medical Center
Brian Wayne TilkerTorkildson Katz Hetherington Harris & Knorek, Respondent
David Henry
Dennis William KingDeeley King Pang & Van Etten, Petitioner