Marshall v. Exelis Systems Corporation et al

Filing 30

MINUTE ORDER granting 23 Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Jury Demand by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/7/13.(dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 13–cv–00545–CMA–KMT RASHANNA MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. EXELIS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, EXELIS, INC., and LAWRENCE LINDLOFF, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA “Plaintiff’s Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Jury Demand” (Doc. No. 23, filed May 31, 2013) is GRANTED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). To the extent Defendant Exelis, Inc., seeks to impose a condition that the plaintiff’s amendment require Defendant Exelis, Inc., to be dismissed with prejudice, that matter is not properly before the court. Moreover, the defendant has failed to argue or show that the plaintiff should not be allowed to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a), which allows the court to freely allow amendment of the pleadings “when justice so requires,” or that the amendment should not be allowed due to “undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993). The Clerk is directed to file the “Amended Complaint and Jury Demand” (Doc. No. 23-1). Dated: June 7, 2013

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?