Kane v. Honeywell Hommed, LLC et al

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER. Jennifer L. Gokenbach's 29 Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is granted. Attorney Jennifer Lyn Gokenbach terminated. Defendant Terry Duesterhoeft's 27 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer is granted. Defendant Duesterhoeft shall file his First Amended Answer on or before 4/24/2012. The initial Answer may be amended only to the extent that Defendant Duesterhoeft may assert an affirmative defense pursuant to the Colorado "Heart Balm" statute, as stated in his Motion for Leave. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/17/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03352-PAB-KLM
MARY KANE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
HONEYWELL HOMMED, LLC, a New Jersey corporation, and
TERRY DUESTERHOEFT, an individual,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Jennifer L. Gokenbach’s Unopposed Motion
to Withdraw as Counsel [Docket No. 29; Filed April 5, 2012] (“Motion to Withdraw”) and
Defendant Terry Duesterhoeft’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer
[Docket No. 27; Filed March 28, 2012] (“Motion for Leave”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw [#29] is GRANTED. Attorney
Gokenbach is relieved of any further representation of Defendant Honeywell Hommed, LLC
in this case. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate Attorney Gokenbach as
counsel of record, and to remove her name from the electronic certificate of mailing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave [#27] is GRANTED. Although
Plaintiff opposes the relief requested, the Motion is timely filed. Sched. Ord., [#26] at 11
(setting the deadline for amendment of pleadings at April 14, 2012). Moreover, Defendant
Duesterhoeft seeks to add one statutory affirmative defense pursuant to the Colorado
“Heart Balm” statute, and represents that he “was not made aware of specific facts which
support his affirmative defense until after his initial Answer was filed.” [#27] at 3. The
defense is premised on the assertion of “Wedding Related Expenses” by Plaintiff in the
Scheduling Order. See [#26] at 8.
The Court has discretion to grant a party leave to amend pleadings. Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.”). “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
1

to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. – the leave
sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)).
Here, the leave sought is within the deadline stated in the Scheduling Order, and is
premised on information disclosed after the filing of the initial Answer. The Court thus
grants the Motion for Leave pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Duesterhoeft shall file his First Amended
Answer on or before April 24, 2012. The initial Answer may be amended only to the extent
that Defendant Duesterhoeft may assert an affirmative defense pursuant to the Colorado
“Heart Balm” statute, as stated in his Motion for Leave.
Dated: April 17, 2012

2