Lobo Well Service v. Marion Energy

Filing 332

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: granting 298 Motion in Limine to Preclude Marion from Presenting Defenses of Waiver and Estoppel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/18/2011. (las)

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

LOBO WELL SERVICE, LLC, a Utah
Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,

AMENDED MEMORANDUM
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE MARION
FROM PRESENTING DEFENSES OF
WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL

vs.

MARION ENERGY, INC., a Texas
Corporation,

Case No. 2:07-CV-273 TS

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Marion from
Presenting Defenses of Waiver and Estoppel.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
grant the Motion.
In 2008, Marion sought leave to amend its Answer and Counterclaims. Marion’s motion
attached a proposed Amended Answer and Counterclaims as an exhibit. The proposed Amended

1

Docket No. 298.
1

Answer and Counterclaim did not include the counterclaim of “waiver, estoppel, and/or laches.”
The Court granted the Motion, but the Amended Answer and Counterclaim that were eventually
filed contained a counterclaim for “waiver, estoppel and/or laches.”2
Plaintiff now moves this Court to preclude the defenses of waiver and estoppel because
the counterclaim was not filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not dispute that the filing of its waiver and estoppel counterclaim violates the
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, Defendant argues that Plaintiff would suffer no prejudice from
the claims being presented at trial because Plaintiff was put on notice of the claims when the
Amended Answer and Counterclaim were filed. Thus, Defendant argues that the pleadings
should be amended under Rule 15(b)(1) to include its waiver and estoppel counterclaim.
The Court is concerned with the filing of the waiver and estoppel counterclaim.
Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant’s other counterclaims adequately protect its interest
in this matter. Rule 15(b)(1) states that during or after trial a court should “freely permit an
amendment when doing so will aid in presenting the merits” of a case. The Court finds that the
estoppel and waiver counterclaim would not aid in “presenting the merits” of this case. As it has
previously stated, the Court is concerned that the parties are unnecessarily complicating this
matter. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Marion from Presenting
Defenses of Waiver and Estoppel (Docket No. 298) is GRANTED.

2

Docket No. 108, at 7.
2

DATED April 18, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3