Handy Jr. v. Douglas et al
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Amend Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/07/2014.(slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01930-MEH
WYATT T. HANDY, JR.,
GREG WILKINSON, and
UNKNOWN SHIFT COMMANDER/DUTY OFFICER,
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 7, 2014.
In the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Amend Complaint [filed October 7,
2014; docket #25] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court will accept the addition of
proposed tort claims,1 but a “claim” of respondeat superior does not exist; rather, it is a theory of
liability. Stokes v. Denver Newspaper Agency, LLP, 159 P.3d 691, 693 (Colo. App. 2006) (“Under
the respondeat superior doctrine, an employer is liable for torts of an employee acting within the
scope of employment.”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff is directed to file his proposed “Second
Amended Complaint” (titled as such) excluding “Claim Six” for respondeat superior. Defendants
Douglas, Reyman, Bonner and Wilkinson, who have been served and whose counsel has appeared
in this case, shall file an answer or other response to the Second Amended Complaint on or before
November 17, 2014. The Plaintiff shall serve the remaining Defendants with the Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
Nothing in this order should be construed to preclude defenses to such claims pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or other applicable rules or case law.
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?