Western Vision Software v. Process Vision

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDERgranting 19 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 10/03/2013. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION

WESTERN VISION SOFTWARE, L.C.,
a Utah corporation,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:12cv155

PROCESS VISION, LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1-10,

District Judge Robert J. Shelby

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner by District Judge Robert J.
Shelby pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is Western Vision Software,
L.C.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to amend its complaint.2 Process Vision, LLC has not filed
a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, and the time for doing so has passed. See
DUCivR 7-1(b)(4)(B); see also DUCivr 7-1(d) (“Failure to respond timely to a motion may
result in the court’s granting the motion without further notice.”).
Under rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend pleadings “shall
be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (stating that the mandate of rule 15(a) “is to be heeded” and that “[i]n the

1

See docket no. 15.

2

See docket no. 19.

absence of any apparent or declared reason . . . the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
‘freely given.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Based upon this lenient standard, and the fact
that the motion is unopposed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
amend its complaint is GRANTED. Thus, Plaintiff shall file its proposed amended complaint
no later than October 24, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

2