Firs Home Owners Association v. City of SeaTac, C19-1130RSL. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20200122i79
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2020
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on "Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses." Dkt. # 48. The motion is an attempt to correct certain deficiencies identified by plaintiff in a pending motion to strike affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 42. Plaintiff argues that the motion does not address all of the issues it raised in the motion to strike and should there
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on "Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses." Dkt. # 48. The motion is an attempt to correct certain deficiencies identified by plaintiff in a pending motion to strike affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 42. Plaintiff argues that the motion does not address all of the issues it raised in the motion to strike and should theref..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on "Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses." Dkt. # 48. The motion is an attempt to correct certain deficiencies identified by plaintiff in a pending motion to strike affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 42. Plaintiff argues that the motion does not address all of the issues it raised in the motion to strike and should therefore be denied as prejudicial and futile. Dkt. # 53.
The source of the alleged prejudice is unclear. Plaintiff identified deficiencies in the affirmative defenses, and defendant has proactively responded to its criticisms. Plaintiff offers no support for its argument that defendant must wait until the Court strikes its affirmative defenses before acknowledging and attempting to correct deficiencies, nor would such a requirement promote the efficient use of the parties' or the Court's time. Plaintiff's claim of futility is equally unavailing. Plaintiff concedes that the proposed amendment addresses at least two of the shortcomings it identified in its motion to strike. The amendment would not, therefore, be futile.
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to amend its answer and affirmative defenses is GRANTED. The Court shall consider plaintiff's motion to strike in the context of the amended pleading.
Source: Leagle
