Epstein Secrets

l at some period of time." Id. citing Gregory I. Mitchell 634 F.2d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 1981). Further, "[w]h

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust'. Lepone 305 F.3d 1 (I' Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impendi

l at some period of time." Id. citing Gregory I. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203 (56 Cir. 1981). Further, "[w]h

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe

that the "[m]ere passage of time need not result in a denial of leave to amend, but delay becomes fatal at some period of time." Id. ugt Gregory t Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203 (5'h Cir. 1981). Further, "[w]hen there has been an apparent lack of diligence, the burden shifts to the movant to prove that the

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe