Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Company, 1st Cir. (2013)
Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Company, 1st Cir. (2013)
No. 12-1874
VADIM NIKITINE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WILMINGTON TRUST CO.,
Defendant, Appellee.
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
May 8, 2013
F.3d
___
(1st
Cir.
Apr.
22,
2013)
[No.
11-2449].
The
to
file
liability.
an
amended
complaint
asserting
new
theory
of
particularized attention.2
1
30 (1st Cir. 2006); Hatch v. Dep't for Children, Youth & Their
Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001).
In that pursuit, we
Aponte-Torres
v. Univ. of P.R., 445 F.3d 50, 58 (1st Cir. 2006); see Hatch, 274
F.3d at 19.
We recognize that leave to amend should be "freely
give[n]" in instances in which "justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2).
Rather, a district
delay,
bad
faith,
futility,
Caldern-Serra,
[or]
the
absence
of
due
district
judge,
in
Caldern-
But whereas in
first
amended
complaint.
The
plaintiff
claims
that
this
Whether the
We turn, then, to
His
these motions.
While the fully briefed motions were under advisement in
this case almost nine months after the plaintiff's original
complaint was filed, approximately six months after the motions to
-4-
dismiss were filed, and roughly six weeks after the order of
dismissal in Caldern-Serra the plaintiff moved for leave to file
an amended complaint.
The
plaintiff had waited almost nine months to seek leave to amend and,
even then, "offer[ed] absolutely no explanation for his need to
file an amended complaint."
Here,
-5-
It is, rather,
See, e.g.,
Affirmed.
-6-