Locke v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER granting 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint toAdd Claim for Punitive Damages and to Amend Scheduling Order. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/13/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01184-MSK-MJW
ABBY M. LOCKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to
Add Claim for Punitive Damages and to Amend Scheduling Order (docket no. 23) is
GRANTED for the following reasons. Plaintiff may add a claim for Punitive Damages
and the attached Amended Complaint (docket no. 23-17) is accepted for filing and is the
operative Complaint. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for the
subject motion (docket no. 23).
This motion is made after the deadline for amendment of pleadings, and thus this
court has applied the following analysis in deciding whether to allow the amendments:
Where, as here, a motion to amend the pleadings . . . is filed after the
scheduling order deadline, a “two-step analysis” is required. Once a
scheduling order’s deadline for amendment has passed, a movant must
first demonstrate to the court that it has “good cause” for seeking
modification of the scheduling deadline under Rule 16(b). If the movant
satisfies Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard, it must then pass the
requirements for amendment under Rule 15(a) . . . .
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard is much different than the more lenient
standard contained in Rule 15(a). Rule 16(b) does not focus on the bad
faith of the movant, or the prejudice to the opposing party. Rather, it
focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify the
scheduling order to permit the proposed amendment. Properly construed,
“good cause” means that the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite
a party’s diligent efforts. In other words, this court may “modify the
schedule on a showing of good cause if [the deadline] cannot be met

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Carelessness is
not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant
of relief.
Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001) (quotations
and citations omitted). This court finds that plaintiff has satisfied this first step in the
analysis and have established good cause to extend the deadline within which they may
seek leave to amend the complaint.
The second step is consideration of whether plaintiff has satisfied the standard
for amendment of pleadings required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a):
Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when
justice so requires.” Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified
upon a showing of 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.
Id. at 669 (citation omitted). Based upon this standard, and substantially for the reasons
stated in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Claim for Punitive
Damages and to Amend Scheduling Order (docket no. 23) and in Plaintiff’s Reply
(docket no. 26), this court finds that the proposed amendments should be permitted.
The court notes that no trial date or final pretrial date has been set in this matter. In the
event the parties believe that additional discovery is warranted in light of these
amendments, they may move to extend discovery for a reasonable period and to alter
any other deadlines. Id. Thus, any prejudice that might arise from these amendments
is capable of being cured. Id.
Date: December 13, 2013