Westroc Trucking, Inc. et al v. Frontier Drilling, LLC

Filing 53

MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaims, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/21/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00245-RM-MJW
WESTROC TRUCKING, INC., and
WESTROC OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FRONTIER DRILLING, LLC,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Frontier Drilling, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Counterclaims (Docket No. 49) is GRANTED, and the proposed First Amended Answer,
Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Docket No. 49-2) is ACCEPTED FOR
FILING, for the following reasons.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs the amendment of pleadings.
Because the period for amending as of right has passed, Defendant must seek the
court’s leave to file an amended pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Pursuant to Rule 15,
“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. at 15(a)(2). “The
purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants ‘the maximum opportunity for each claim to be
decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.’” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co.,
451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus:
“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require,
be ‘freely given.’”
Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Plaintiff offers only one reason why leave should not be granted. Plaintiff argues
that Defendant’s amendment is futile because Plaintiff is right about the underlying
dispute in this case (i.e., because it has a valid lien on the purportedly converted

property). This, of course, does not come close to establishing futility, because the
validity of Plaintiff’s lien is in dispute. The motion is granted.
Date: July 21, 2015