Taylor et al v. Panico et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 143 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 03/03/09.(wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 07-cv-00985-MSK-KMT MARTHA A. CESERY TAYLOR, an individual residing in Florida, and WALTER Q. TAYLOR, an individual residing in Florida, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID E. K. PANICO, an individual residing in Colorado, JANICE L. PANICO a/k/a/ JAN PANICO, an individual residing in Colorado, CAROL DOPKIN, an individual residing in Colorado, and CAROL DOPKIN REAL ESTATE AND RANCH, INC., a/k/a CAROL DOPKIN REAL ESTATE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER
This matter is before the court on "Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings" (Doc. No.143, filed November 14, 2008). It appears Plaintiffs want to amend their complaint by adding the additional claims of negligent misrepresentation, breaches of statutory duties, and vicarious liability. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend a pleading by leave of court, and that leave shall be given freely when justice so requires. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). Although the federal rules permit and require liberal construction and amendment of pleadings, the rules do not grant the parties unlimited rights of amendment. A motion to amend may be denied on the grounds of 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, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. 15 (a)(2), "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Here, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend was filed over a year after the filing of their initial Complaint (Doc. No.1, filed September 11, 2007), and on the deadline for dispostive motions. The discovery deadline was October 22, 2008. The Plaintiffs' first Amended Complaint was filed on October 29, 2007, and the defendants have filed an answer (Doc. 47, filed November 1, 2007). A Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 21, 2009. Therefore, due to the Plaintiffs' delay in filing their Motion to Amend, and absent any showing that justice requires the Court grant Plaintiffs' motion, it is denied. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings (Doc. No. 143) is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 3rd day of March, 2009. BY THE COURT:
Kathleen M. Tafoya United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?