Warad West LLC et al v. Sorin CRM USA Inc et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying 73 Motion to Dismiss; granting 74 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 74-1) is ACCEPTED as filed; The Clerk shall file ECF No. 74-1 as its own docket entry titled Second Amended Complaint." ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 04/06/2016.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-3242-WJM-KLM
WARAD WEST, LLC, and
ANTHONY CAFORIO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SORIN CRM USA INC., and
SORIN GROUP USA, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) or for Alternative Relief (ECF No. 73) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Five
Additional Days to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 74), to which Plaintiffs
attach the proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 74-1). It is difficult to
understand how Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Brian Rayment, could fail to “clearly apprehend
and calendar the Court’s Order requiring the filing of the Second Amended Complaint
within 10 days by March 31, 2016.” (ECF No. 74 at 2.) There was nothing to
“apprehend” beyond an explicitly stated deadline. The Court has little time or tolerance
for such sloppy lawyering.
Nonetheless, Mr. Rayment’s carelessness is not, under these circumstances,
grounds for involuntary dismissal. The Court’s recent order resolving Defendants’
motions to dismiss (ECF No. 71) sustained Plaintiffs’ causes of action for breach of

contract and, in part, defamation, and the Court’s reasoning would have applied equally
well to the First Amended Complaint. However, Plaintiffs had a pending motion for
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and the Court granted it as a vehicle of
convenience to place on the docket a complaint containing only the remaining causes
of action. Absent that pending motion for leave to amend, this matter would have
proceeded on the First Amended Complaint, as narrowed by this Court’s order. Thus,
Mr. Rayment’s failure to file the Second Amended Complaint by March 31, 2016, was
substantively immaterial in these unique circumstances.
That said, Mr. Rayment’s inattention to this matter is deeply troubling, and the
Court will closely scrutinize any further requests for extension of time for any indication
that they may be motivated by poor time management or inability to docket deadlines.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) or for
Alternative Relief (ECF No. 73) is DENIED;

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Five Additional Days to File Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED;

3.

Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 74-1) is ACCEPTED
as filed;

4.

The Clerk shall file ECF No. 74-1 as its own docket entry titled “Second
Amended Complaint”; and

5.

Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise plead to the Second Amended
Complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure begins as of the date of
this Order.
2

Dated this 6th day of April, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3