Hull v. Beverage Distributors Company, LLC
ORDER denying 53 Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Original Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 15(a)(2) without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A and for failure to submit a copy of the proposed amended complaint with his motion to amend, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/14/2012.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–03287–WJM–KMT
CARLOS R. HULL,
BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY, LLC,
TED HALLEY, and
This matter is before the court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Original Complaint
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)” (Doc. No. 53, filed November 13, 2012).
At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff has failed to confer wit the defendants before
filing his Motion to Amend. The Tenth Circuit has cautioned that pro se litigants “must follow
the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917
(10th Cir. 1992) (“[W]e have repeatedly upheld dismissals in situations where the parties
themselves neglected their cases or refused to obey court orders.” (citing cases)). The Local
Rules of Practice for the District of Colorado require all parties to confer on motions and other
disputes before a motion is filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.; see also Visor v. Sprint, No. Civ.A.
96-K-1730, 1997 WL 796989, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 31, 1997).
Additionally, at this stage of the case, Plaintiff may amend his complaint “with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court may
deny a motion to amend a complaint for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Zaidi v.
Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1984) (district court should have held motion to amend in
abeyance pending submission of plaintiff's proposed amendment); Bownes v. City of Gary,
Indiana, 112 F.R.D. 424, 425 (N.D. Ind. 1986) (“common sense” dictates that a party seeking
leave to amend should accompany his motion with a copy of the proposed amended complaint);
Williams v. Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 170 (E.D. Va. 1981) (where plaintiff sought leave to
amend, a copy of the proposed amended pleading must be attached to the motion). Plaintiff has
not submitted a copy of his proposed amended complaint to the court.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Original Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2)” (Doc. No. 53) is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A and for failure to submit a copy of the proposed amended complaint
with his motion to amend.
Dated this 14th day of November, 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?