Maverick Coil Tubing Services, LLC v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
ORDER granting 13 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall file Second Amended Complaint by 01/08/2010 by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 1/7/2010.(kmtcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 09cv02720MSKKMT MAVERICK COIL TUBING SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint" (Doc. No. 13, filed January 6, 2010). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), "The 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). Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to remove a single reference to exemplary damages in the "Prayer for Relief" section of its First Amended Complaint. Defendants do not oppose the motion. There has been no showing of, and the court does not find, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint" (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file its Second Amended Complaint no later than January 8, 2010. Dated this 7th day of January, 2010. 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?