Valles v. Gen-X Clothing No 63 et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 24 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File Second Amended Complaint and Join Additional Parties. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (# 23 ) for filing as of the dat e of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Gen-X Echo B, Inc. and Martin Collazo Rangel shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before July 24, 2013. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 07/02/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00201-RM-KLM
HILLARY VALLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEN-X ECHO B, INC, d/b/a GENX and
MARTIN COLLAZO RANGEL,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to File Second
Amended Complaint and Join Additional Parties [Docket No. 24; Filed June 28, 2013]
(the “Motion”). Plaintiff represents that Defendants do not oppose the Motion. The
Scheduling Order [#19] governing this case provides that the deadline for joinder of parties
and amendment of pleadings was June 29, 2013. Scheduling Order [#19] at § IX(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is timely.
The Court has discretion to grant a party leave to amend its 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
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
1

sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)).
Potential prejudice to a defendant is the most important factor in considering whether a
plaintiff should be permitted to amend its complaint. Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d
1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006). “Courts typically find prejudice only when the [proposed]
amendment unfairly affects the defendants in terms of preparing their defense to [claims
asserted in the] amendment.” Id. (quotation omitted).
After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s original Complaint [#1] and proposed Amended
Complaint [#23], the Court agrees with Plaintiff that “no one will be prejudiced by this
amendment.” Motion [#24] at 2. Defendants do not oppose the Motion which indicates that
they do not perceive any prejudice to them if the Motion is granted. Moreover, this case
is still in its early stages, and Defendants have ample time to prepare their defenses. The
deadline for the completion of discovery is more than three months away, and the deadline
for filing dispositive motions is November 29, 2013.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for amending her
original Complaint [#1]. Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to name additional parties,
information Plaintiff was provided by Defendants’ counsel. Motion [#24] at 1. Permitting
such amendment will benefit the parties and the Court by clarifying the issues in the case.
For the foregoing reasons, and considering that leave to amend should be freely
given,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [#23] for filing as of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Gen-X Echo B, Inc. and Martin Collazo

2

Rangel shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before July 24,
2013.
Dated: July 2, 2013

3