Phoenix Technologies, Inc. v. TRW, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litig.

    Master File No. 12-3555 (CDJ) (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Similar delays have been found unduly long, and motions for leave to amend have been denied on that basis. See, e.g., Hildebrand v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 264 F.R.D. 192, 199 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (failing to seek an amendment until eight months after the Court-imposed deadline had passed—despite long-term knowledge of the information supposedly requiring amendment—constitutes undue delay); Phoenix Techs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 122, 123 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (denying motion to amend where defendant offered no explanation for seventeen month delay); Tarkett Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 144 F.R.D. 289, 291 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (same, where defendant offered no explanation for nearly three month delay); see also McKnight v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 00-573, 2001 WL 74772 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2001) (same, where plaintiff offered no explanation for three month delay, discovery had closed and all parties already deposed). Based on the unreasonably long time between "uncovering" the documents that form the factual basis of the attempted monopolization claim and seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have acted with undue delay in attempting to assert a new theory of recovery after the close of discovery.

  2. Centrix HR, LLC v. On-Site Staff Management, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-5660 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2008)   Cited 5 times

    Courts in this circuit deny requests to amend "only where there has been undue delay, bad faith or where it would be prejudicial to the nonmoving party." Phoenix Techs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 122, 123 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1462 (3d Cir. 1994) (Table).

  3. Komori America Corp.

    200 F.R.D. 507 (E.D. Pa. 2001)   Cited 5 times
    Cataloging cases that denied motion to amend where party offered no explanation for months-long delay in seeking leave

    Other courts have rejected motions to amend under similar circumstances. See, e.g.,Phoenix Techs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 122, 123 (E.D.Pa.1994) (denying motion to amend where defendant offered no explanation for seventeen month delay); Tarkett Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 144 F.R.D. 289, 291 (E.D.Pa.1992) (same, where defendant offered no explanation for nearly three month delay); see alsoMcKnight v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. CIV.A. 00-573, 2001 WL 74772 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 29, 2001) (same, where plaintiff offered no explanation for delay and discovery had closed); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Arch Assocs. Corp., 172 F.R.D. 151, 155 (E.D.Pa.1997) (" allowing amendment of [defendants'] remaining claims ... would clearly lead to further delay and an additional round of time-consuming discovery." ); Kuhn v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 85 F.R.D. 86 (E.D.Pa.1979) (denying motion to amend after discovery had closed).

  4. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. v. United States

    161 F.R.D. 300 (E.D. Pa. 1995)   Cited 12 times

    We could also find that the motion is untimely based on the fact that discovery is virtually complete, and trial is looming close. Ross v. Jolly, 151 F.R.D. 562 (E.D.Pa.1993) (eight-month delay inordinate); Phoenix Technologies, Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 122, 123 (five month delay undue).           Passage of time alone does not mandate denial of leave to amend.