Durkee v. Minor, et al
MINUTE ORDER granting 22 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff is directed to file a "clean" version of the Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (docket no. 22-1) on or before July 10, 2014. ORDERED that the Show Cause Hearing set before Mag istrate Judge Watanabe on July 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. is now MOOT based upon this court's order allowing the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (docket no. 22-1) to be filed. Accordingly, the Show Cause Order (docket no. 11) is VACATED and the Show Cause Hearing and Status Conference set on July 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. are also VACATED by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 07/07/14.(jhawk, ) Modified on 7/7/2014 to add text (jhawk, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00745-WYD-MJW
SHERIFF JOHN MINOR, in his official and individual capacities,
SERGEANT RON HOCHMUTH, in his individual capacity, and
SENIOR SERGEANT CHERYL GIORDANO, in her individual capacity,
SENIOR SERGEANT CYNTHIA GILBERT, in her individual capacity, and
SENIOR SERGEANT TOM TILKA, in his individual capacity,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint and Jury Demand (docket no. 22) is GRANTED for the following reasons.
Plaintiff is directed to file a “clean” version of the Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
(docket no. 22-1) on or before July 10, 2014. Defendants Senior Sergeant Cheryl
Giordano, Senior Sergeant Cynthia Gilbert and Senior Sergeant Tom Tilka are added
as Defendants. John Does #1-5 are removed as Defendants.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
(docket no. 22) is made after the deadline for amendment of pleadings, and thus this
court has applied the following analysis in deciding whether to allow the
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 the plaintiff has satisfied this first step in
the analysis and have established good cause to extend the deadline within which
he may seek leave to amend the complaint.
The second step is consideration of whether the 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 the subject motion (docket no. 22), this court finds that the
proposed amendments should be permitted. The court notes that no trial 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 reopen 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.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Show Cause Hearing set before
Magistrate Judge Watanabe on July 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. is now MOOT based
upon this court’s order allowing the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
(docket no. 22-1) to be filed. Accordingly, the Show Cause Order (docket no. 11) is
VACATED and the Show Cause Hearing and Status Conference set on July 8, 2014
at 10:00 a.m. are also VACATED.
Date: July 7, 2014
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?