No. 20-1108

Pontiler S.A. v. OPI Products Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-02-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: amendment civil-procedure contract due-process federal-civil-procedure federal-policy judicial-discretion pleading-standards rule-15 rule-8
Latest Conference: 2021-04-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

The court of appeals without a hearing and without granting leave to amend dismissed petitioner's complaint because it omits one nonessential word in describing respondents' breach of contract. Can this disposition be squared with the pleading norms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), Rule15(a)(2)'s generous policy of amendment, due process and decisional law addressing this important question of federal policy and practice?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the court of appeals' dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for omitting one nonessential word in describing the respondents' breach of contract can be squared with the pleading norms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), Rule 15(a)(2)'s generous policy of amendment, due process, and relevant decisional law

Docket Entries

2021-04-05
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.
2021-03-10
Waiver of right of respondent OPI Products Inc., et al. to respond filed.
2021-02-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 15, 2021)

Attorneys

OPI Products Inc., et al.
Karin Dougan VogelSheppard Mullin Richter Hampton, Respondent
Pontiler, S.A.
Dennis P. Derrick — Petitioner