Home Design Services, Inc. v. Bohnenkamp Construction, Inc. et al

Filing 63

Minute ORDER granting 61 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Amend First AmendedComplaint. The Clerk of Court is directed file Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint - Injunctive Relief Sought (#61-2). Denying 60 Stipulated Motion to Vacate All Deadlines Contained Within the Scheduling Order of January 20, 2009 and Set Planning/Scheduling Conference. The parties shall file a status report no later than ten days after service of the new defendant to advise whether a settlement conference would be beneficial and to advise the court as to the status of discovery and other deadlines by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/3/09.(kmtcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 08-cv-02391-WDM-KMT HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BOHNENKAMP CONSTRUCTION, INC., MICHAEL BOHNENKAMP, and MARTHA WARNER, Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA This matter is before me on "Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint" (#61, filed August 27, 2009). 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). 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). The motion is unopposed, and the court finds no failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. Therefore, the motion to amend (#61) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed file Plaintiff's "Second Amended Complaint - Injunctive Relief Sought" (#61-2). The "Stipulated Motion to Vacate All Deadlines Contained Within the Scheduling Order of January 20, 2009 and Set Planning/Scheduling Conference" (#60, filed August 27, 2009) is DENIED. The court finds no reason to vacate all deadlines and to hold another scheduling conference until after the new defendant has been served. The settlement conference set for September 18, 2009, has previously been vacated (#59), and no other deadlines are imminent.

The parties shall file a status report no later than ten days after service of the new defendant to advise whether a settlement conference would be beneficial and to advise the court as to the status of discovery and other deadlines. Dated: September 3, 2009

2