Kreutzer v. The Home Depot, Inc.
MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/22/2016.(slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00236-RM-MJW
THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] 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.” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229
(10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)).
“The liberal granting of motions for leave to amend reflects the basic policy that
pleadings should enable a claim to be heard on its merits.” Carr v. Hanley, 2009 WL
4693870, *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2009) (quoting Calderon v. Kansas Dep’t of Soc. &
Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999)). In the motion, Plaintiff explains
that after conferring with counsel for Defendant, she has learned that the correct name
of Defendant is The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and she seeks leave to amend “so that
the properly named Defendant may respond and this case may proceed.” (Docket No.
15 at 1). The Court finds that leave to amend should be granted pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2) in this circumstance. Accordingly,
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s
proposed Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 15-1) for filing as of the date of this
It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to the Second Amended
Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).
Date: March 22, 2016
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?