Filed: Apr. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." (Doc. No. 16, filed Apr. 4, 2012 [Mot.].) In its Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 7, filed Mar. 26, 2012) to correctly name the defendant doing business as Alpine Meadows as Alpine Sierra Ventures, LLC, rather than as Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation. ( See Mot.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), "[t]he cour
Summary: ORDER KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." (Doc. No. 16, filed Apr. 4, 2012 [Mot.].) In its Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 7, filed Mar. 26, 2012) to correctly name the defendant doing business as Alpine Meadows as Alpine Sierra Ventures, LLC, rather than as Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation. ( See Mot.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), "[t]he court..
More
ORDER
KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." (Doc. No. 16, filed Apr. 4, 2012 [Mot.].) In its Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 7, filed Mar. 26, 2012) to correctly name the defendant doing business as Alpine Meadows as Alpine Sierra Ventures, LLC, rather than as Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation. (See Mot.)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend the pleadings] when justice so requires." See also York v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5, 232 F.R.D. 648, 649 (D. Colo. 2005); Aspen Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, LLC v. Aspen Valley Hosp. Dist., 353 F.3d 832, 842 (10th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court has explained the circumstances under which denial of leave to amend is appropriate.
If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be "freely given." Of course, the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). See also Triplett v. LeFlore County, Okl., 712 F.2d 444, 446 (10th Cir. 1983).
The case is in the early stages of litigation. Indeed, Defendants have not yet entered their respective appearances in this case, and the court has yet to enter a scheduling order setting a deadline for amending the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Moreover, Plaintiff's Motion does not seek to make substantive changes to the First Amended Complaint. Rather, it merely seeks to cure a technical defect as to the correct identity of the defendant operating Alpine Meadows. Finally, the court finds no showing of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint" (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 16-1).
