PLX Technology, Inc. v. Knuettel

Filing 28

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/6/12.(ktera)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–03256–DME–KMT

PLX TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANCIS P. KNUETTEL, II, an individual,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the “Unopposed Motion by Defendant for Leave to File
Amended Answer.” (Doc. No. 25, filed May 23, 2012.) Defendant seeks to amend his Answer
(Doc. No. 3) to assert additional defenses—namely, failure to mitigate, collateral estoppel, and
res judicata.
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.”1 See also York v. Cherry Creek Sch.

1

At the Scheduling Conference held on March 1, 2012, the court established a May 11,
2012 deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings. Thus, Defendant’s Motion,
filed May 23, 2012, is untimely. However, the court notes that Defendant indeed attempted to
file his Amended Answer on May 11, 2012. (See Stricken Doc. No. 22.) That document was
stricken, however, because it was filed without an accompanying motion for leave to amend and
the time for Defendant to amend his Answer as a matter of course (i.e. without leave of court or
consent of the opposing party) had passed. (See Doc. No. 23, filed May 15, 2012.)
Nevertheless, because Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s Motion, the court will gratuitously

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 does not oppose Defendant’s Motion.2 Thus, there is no argument, and the court
does not otherwise find, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure

overlook this mistake and review Defendant’s Motion under Rule 15(a), rather than Rule 16(b).
See also Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, n.4 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that the Tenth
Circuit has not “decide[d] whether a party seeking to amend its pleading after the scheduling
order deadline must show ‘good cause’ for the amendment under Rule 16(b) in addition to the
Rule 15(a) requirements.”).
2

In light of Plaintiff’s non-opposition to Defendant’s Motion, the court entered a minute
order on May 25, 2012 directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s Motion, on or before
May 31, 2012, indicating whether it consented to Defendant’s proposed amendments consistent
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). No response was filed by May 31, 2012 or at any time after that
date. Plaintiff is admonished for failing to comply with a court-ordered directive.
2

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 “Unopposed Motion by Defendant for Leave to File Amended
Answer” (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Defendant’s
Amended Answer (Doc. No. 25-1).
Dated this 6th day of June, 2012.

3