ORDER

KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint." (["Motion"], Doc. No. 29.) Defendant has responded to the Motion, and Plaintiff has replied. (["Response"], Doc. No. 33; ["Reply"], Doc. No. 34; ["Supplemental Response"], Doc. No. 39.) On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Conrad Jacquart filed this lawsuit, in Colorado state court, against his homeowner's property insurance provider, Defendant State Auto Insurance Company of Ohio, to recover policy benefits for property damage coverage. (["Complaint"], Doc. No. 2 at 1-5.) Defendant removed the case to federal court, on August 30, 2019, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 at 1-2.)

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, after an "uninhabitable shed" located on his property was "extensively damaged" by fire, Defendant unreasonably denied his claim for property damage benefits, in violation of Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 10-3-1113(3), 10-3-1115, and 10-3-1116. (Compl. 4 ¶¶ 15-20.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant's actions amounted to a breach of his insurance contract, as well as common law insurance bad faith. (Id. at 3-5 ¶¶ 14, 21-25.) Plaintiff seeks to recover: (1) "actual, economic, non-economic, compensatory, and consequential damages;" (2) statutory "double damages" under § 10-3-1116; (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys' fees; and (6) court costs. (Id. at 5.)

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for leave to amend his complaint. In the Motion, Plaintiff asks to add his wife, Jade Japhet, as a plaintiff, as well as to "correctly name" the defendant as "State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company." (Mot. 1.) Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to amend his complaint, because his wife is a named insured under the policy at issue, and because State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company is "the actual corporate entity" that issued the policy. (Id.) The proposed First Amended Complaint, attached as an exhibit to the Reply,1 does name Jade Japhet as a co-plaintiff, and identifies the defendant to be "State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company." (Reply Ex. 1 at 1.) No other revisions are contained within Plaintiff's proposed pleading. (Compare Doc. No. 2, with Reply Ex. 1.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which applies here,2 provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The rule's purpose "is to provide litigants the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on the merits rather than on procedural niceties." Minter v. Prime Equip., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, "[r]efusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment." Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)); see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) ("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 claims on the merits.").

In this case, there is no reason to deny Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. There is no indication that Plaintiff acted in bad faith or with undue delay. Indeed, the instant Motion was filed well within the deadline for the amendment of pleadings. (See Doc. No. 25 at 10.) Further, Defendant has made clear that it does not oppose the proposed amendment. (Supp. Resp. 1-2.) Moreover, this case is in an early stage, and the parties have yet to complete discovery. For those reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to amend his Complaint to add his wife as a plaintiff, as well as to amend the defendant's name.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint no later than March 3, 2020.