KMI Zeolite, Inc. v. United States Department of the Interior, et al.

Filing 54

ORDER Granting 49 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Ford shall file an amended complaint identical to that attached to his notice of corrected document 53 within seven (7) days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

KMI ZEOLITE, INC. et al.,

9

Plaintiff(s),

10
11
12

Case No. 2:15-CV-2038 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendant(s).

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is plaintiff Robert Ford’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. (ECF Nos. 49, 53). Defendants have not filed a response, and the period to do so has
since passed.
Plaintiff Ford seeks leave to amend his complaint to add new parties to his quiet title claim
who may have an interest in the subject property, claiming that these parties were just recently
discovered. (ECF No. 49). Plaintiff KMI Zeolite, Inc. filed a response indicating that it has no
position regarding plaintiff Ford’s motion. (ECF No. 50). Defendants have not opposed the
motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Supreme Court has .interpreted
Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when granting such leave.
In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained:
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 the amendment, etc.—the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

1
2

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

3

Further, pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), “the failure of an opposing party to file points and

4

authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

7-2(d).
In light of the foregoing, the court will grant plaintiff Ford’s motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. (ECF No. 49). Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint identical to that
attached to his notice of corrected document (ECF No. 53) within seven (7) days from the date of
this order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff Ford’s motion
for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 49) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Ford shall file an amended complaint identical
to that attached to his notice of corrected document (ECF No. 53) within seven (7) days from the
date of this order.
DATED November 29, 2016.

17
18

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-