Maiteki v. Marten Transportation Ltd

Filing 57

ORDER Granting 50 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint; Denying without prejudice 20 Defendant Swifts Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Denyingwithout prejudice 33 Defendant Kni ght Transportations Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before Monday, March 4,, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 2/14/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02021-WJM-CBS
RONALD MUKASA MAITEKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTEN TRANSPORT LTD., with corporate offices at 129 Marten Street, Mondovi, WI
54755,
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC., 5601 W. Buckeye Rd, Phoenix Arizona 85043, and
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION INC., 2200 S. 75th Ave. Phoenix Arizona
85043,
Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
This civil action comes before the court on: (1) “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to
Amend Complaint;” (2) “Defendant Knight Transportation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);” and (3) “Defendant Swift’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Pursuant to the Order Referring
Case dated August 3, 2012 (Doc. # 5) and the memoranda dated September 14, 2012 (Doc.
# 23), September 25, 2012 (Doc. # 35), and November 26, 2012 (Doc. # 51), these matters
were referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motions, the Responses
(filed September 20, 2012, October 10, 2012, December 10, 2012, and December 14, 2012)
(Docs. # 28, 39, # 52, and # 54), the Replies (filed October 4, 2012, October 29, 2012,
January 4, 2013, and January 11, 2014) (Docs. # 38, # 41, # 55, and $ 56), the pleadings, the
entire case file, the proceedings held on October 31, 2012 (see Courtroom Minutes/Minute
Order (Doc. # 45)) and November 13, 2012 (see Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order (Doc. #
47)), and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Proceeding pro se, Mr. Maiteki filed his initial Complaint on August 2, 2012. (See Doc.
# 1). Defendants Swift and Knight filed the instant Motions to Dismiss the Complaint.

Defendant Marten filed an Answer. (See Doc. # 10). Counsel for Mr. Maiteki entered his
appearance on November 13, 2012 (see Doc. # 48) and filed the instant Motion for Leave to
Amend on November 23, 2012. Defendants Swift and Knight object to Mr. Maiteki’s Motion
for Leave to Amend, arguing that the proposed amendment is futile for failing to remedy the
deficiencies in the Complaint and raising the arguments set forth in their Motions to Dismiss.
(See Docs. # 52, # 54).
The District Court for the District of Colorado has noted that “[r]ather than force a Rule
12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 15(a) opposition brief, the defendants may be better served by
waiting to assert Rule 12 motions until the operative complaint is in place.” General Steel
Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steelwise, LLC, No. 07-cv-01145-DME-KMT, 2008 WL 2520423, at *
4 (D. Colo. 2008). If Defendants have viable grounds for dismissing Mr. Maiteki’s proposed
Amended Complaint, such arguments are more efficiently raised in the context of Rule 12
motions, rather than indirectly under Rule 15(a). See id. (recognizing that a futility argument
under Rule 15(a) effectively places “the cart before the horse”). At the very least, proceeding
under Rule 12 would avoid one round of objections under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) or (b).1
Cf. In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 338 F. Supp.2d 517, 528 (D. N.J. 2004) (noting efficiencies
of disposing of a motion to amend along with a Rule 12 motion); Leach v. Northern Telecom,
Inc., 790 F. Supp. 572, 573-74 (E.D.N.C. 1992) (reasoning that a pragmatic approach to
plaintiff’s motion to amend assured the best use of judicial time and resources). As
Defendants’ arguments asserted in their Motions to Dismiss also apply to Mr. Maiteki’s
proposed Amended Complaint, the court will permit the amended pleading and address
Defendants’ arguments to Mr. Maiteki’s Amended Complaint.

1

An order denying a motion to amend may be dispositive if the order effectively
removes a claim or a party from the action. See Pedro v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 118 F.
Supp.2d 1155, 1157 (D. Kan. 2000)).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint” (filed November 23,

2012) (Doc. # 50) is GRANTED.
2.

Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. # 50-1) is accepted for filing as

of the date of this Order. The Clerk of the Court shall docket Doc. # 50-1 as the Amended
Complaint.
3.

“Defendant Knight Transportation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” (filed September 24, 2012) (Doc. # 33) is DENIED
without prejudice in light of the filing of the Amended Complaint.
4.

“Defendant Swift’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” (filed September 14, 2012) (Doc. # 20) is DENIED without prejudice in light
of the filing of the Amended Complaint.
5.

Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or

before Monday, March 4, 2013.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 14th day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge