Torres Rodriguez v. Rossi Dairy Produce, LLC et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/31/14. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 33 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the First Amended Complaint [Doc. # 33-2]; and (3) The hearing on the Motion to Amend set for April 3, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., is VACATED. (bsimm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01271-RM-BNB
MAGDELENO TORRES RODRIGUEZ,
ROSSI DAIRY PRODUCE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability corporation,
RAYMOND ROSSI, and
This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Doc. #
33, filed 3/13/2014] (the “Motion to Amend”), which is GRANTED.
The action was commenced by filing a Complaint [Doc. # 1] on May 15, 2013. The
defendants answered and asserted counterclaims on September 19, 2013. Answer [Doc. # 13].
The Scheduling Order [Doc. # 24] set December 6, 2013, as the deadline to join parties and
amend pleadings. Id. at p. 12.
The Motion to Amend seeks leave to add a claim for retaliation under the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and retaliation; and for age discrimination in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The defendants resist amendment
arguing undue delay and futility.
The plaintiff could not assert his age discrimination claim until October 6, 2013, which is
beyond the deadline for amendments set by the Scheduling Order. Consequently, even in the
exercise of reasonable diligence, the plaintiff could not have met the deadline to join and amend,
and good cause exists to alter the Scheduling Order to extend that deadline.
Whether to allow an amendment to a pleading is controlled by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and the
cases construing it:
Rule 15(a) provides 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
Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993). On the issue of futility, it has been
[T]he Court will note that the [defendants’] futility argument
seems to place the cart before the horse. Rather 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, 2008 WL 2520423 (D. Colo. June 20,
I find no undue delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing the Motion to Amend, and I
cannot say with certainty, based on the record now before me, that the requested amendments are
futile as a matter of law.
IT IS ORDERED:
The Motion to Amend [Doc. # 33] is GRANTED;
The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the First Amended
Complaint [Doc. # 33-2]; and
The hearing on the Motion to Amend set for April 3, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., is
Dated March 31, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
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?