Viesti Associates, Inc. v. Pearson Education, Inc.
ORDER granting 58 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. By Magistrate Judge David L. West on 4/13/12.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge David L. West
Civil Action No. 11-CV-01687-PAB-DLW
VIESTI ASSOCIATES, INC.
PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1 through 10,
ORDER RE: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. #58]
Plaintiff has filed [Doc. #58] an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint which was referred to the Magistrate Judge by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on April 12,
The Plaintiff has shown good cause for modification of the Scheduling Order under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b). The good cause shown involves the death of Plaintiff’s first counsel and the
disarray of the file.
The Court finds that there is no showing of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the Plaintiff and that justice requires the granting of Plaintiff’s request for leave to
amend its Complaint, therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint [Doc. #58] is GRANTED.
DATED: April 13, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/David L. West
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), “[w]ithin 14 days after being served
with a copy of the magistrate’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a
party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to which
objection was not timely made. The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall
consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s
order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“a
judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where
it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).
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?