Lawrence v. School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver et al
ORDER granting 44 Motion for Leave to File Attached Second Amended Complaint. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/14/12.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–02789–PAB–KMT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a/k/a DENVER
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER, a/k/a DENVER BOARD OF EDUCATION, and
ONE OR MORE JOHN DOES,
This matter is before the court on the “Motion for Leave to File Attached Second
Amended Complaint.” (Doc No. 44, filed Apr. 12, 2012.) Defendants’ “Response to Motion to
[sic] for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint” was filed on April 26, 2012. (Doc. No. 46.)
In her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to add a breach of contract claim based on Defendants’ alleged
continued failure to pay Plaintiff unused sick and personal leave benefits.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[t]he 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 rule 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).
Although Defendants’ originally opposed Plaintiff’s Motion (See Mot. at 1), Defendants
now indicate that they have decided not to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion (Resp. at 2). Thus there is
no argument of—and the court does not otherwise find—undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive, 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.
Therefore it is
ORDERED that the “Motion for Leave to File Attached Second Amended Complaint”
(Doc No. 44) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 44-1.)
Dated this 14th day of June, 2012.
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?