Fuller Real Estate, LLC v. Sycamore Brokerage, LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDER; 40 Plaintiff's Renewed Unopposed Motion for Leave fi File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (Doc. No. 40-1) and Exhibits 16 attached thereto (Doc. Nos. 40-2 through 40-7), by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/28/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–03450–WYD–KMT
FULLER REAL ESTATE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
SYCAMORE BROKERAGE, LLC, d/b/a FULLER SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL
REALTY, a Colorado limited liability company,
R. SCOTT WEBBER, an individual, and
JOHN DOES 1 – 10,
Defendants.

ORDER

The matter before the court is the Plaintiff’s “Renewed Unopposed Motion for Leave to
File Second Amended Complaint.” (Doc. No. 40 [Mot.], filed Sept. 9, 2015.) Plaintiff seeks to
amend its complaint to add two new defendants, Majestic Reality, LLC (“Majestic”), and
Sycamore Brokerage, LLC (“Sycamore”), to the plaintiff’s Fifth and Eighth claims for relief.
Defendants do not oppose the motion. (See id. at 2–3.)
The Court freely grants leave to amend the pleadings when justice so requires. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave is appropriate in the absence of any undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies with previous amendments, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, futility, or other similar reasons. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Persons may be joined as defendants when “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,

severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions or occurrences,” and “any question of law or fact common to all
defendants arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
In its May 2015 scheduling order, the court set June 30, 2015, as the deadline for joinder
of parties and amendment of pleadings. (See Doc. No. 31 at 9.) Plaintiff argues that it has good
cause to join Majestic as a defendant and amend its complaint after this deadline. (See Mot. 2–
4.) Plaintiff avers that it sent its initial discovery requests on May 18, 2015, granted the
defendants several extensions, and received the defendants’ responses on July 16, 2015. (See id.
at 4.) Plaintiff states that in those responses, the plaintiff discovered that two of the original
defendants, Catalyst, LLC (“Catalyst”), and Village Marketing Associates, LLC (“Village”),
were defunct entities owned by Majestic and Sycamore (respectively). (See id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff
now alleges that, based upon its “understanding and belief,” Majestic and Sycamore had
knowledge of “the License Agreement” and contributed to Catalyst’s and Village’s infringement
and unfair use of Plaintiff’s intellectual property. (See id. at 3.)
Plaintiff has shown good cause to grant its motion. Plaintiff sent Defendants its
discovery requests more than thirty days prior to the court’s June deadline to amend and join
parties. Plaintiff files this motion after that deadline because it did not receive responses to its
discovery requests until more than a month after the court’s amendment and joinder deadline.
Those discovery requests contained the information that ultimately led the plaintiff to amend its
complaint. (See id. at 3–4.) Joinder of Majestic as a defendant is permissible under Civ. R.
22(a)(2) because Plaintiff seeks to add Majestic as a defendant to two of its existing claims. The

2

motion is unopposed and there has been no showing of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive,
or futility.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Renewed Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint” is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the Second Amended
Complaint and Jury Demand (Doc. No. 40-1) and Exhibits 1–6 attached thereto (Doc. Nos. 40-2
through 40-7).
Dated this 28th day of September, 2015.

3