Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.
- Decided
- September 14, 1992
- Docket
- 90-15975
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,761 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief’ — Brian Blundell v. County of Los Angeles (2012)
- concluding that motion to amend filed 10 after pretrial scheduling order deadline must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 16 — J.F. v. City of Woodlake (2024)
- concluding that motion to amend filed after pretrial scheduling 19 order deadline must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 — Dizon v. Alegre (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge:
Dairl Johnson [1] appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his complaint. The court found that Johnson failed to demonstrate circumstances that would permit joining an additional party after the joinder cut-off date, and granted summary judgment in favor of Mammoth Recreations. We affirm.
BACKGROUND The underlying facts are straightforward. On December 23, 1987 Johnson was enjoying a day of recreational skiing at the Mammoth Mountain ski resort in Mono County, California. Johnson alleges that he was injured when a “T-bar [ski] lift ... suddenly released” and threw him to the ground.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (1992)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.