Clinical Innovations v. Amed

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 31 Motion to Amend 2 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 1/21/2011. (jtj)

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

CLINICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:10-cv-152-CW-PMW

v.
AMED, INC. dba ATLANTIC MEDICAL
SYSTEMS, INC., a New York corporation,
Defendant.

District Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is Clinical Innovations, LLC’s
(“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to amend its complaint.2 AMED, Inc. dba Atlantic Medical
Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) opposes Plaintiff’s motion.3 The court has carefully reviewed the
written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice
for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral
argument is not necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).

1

See docket no. 18.

2

See docket no. 31.

3

See docket no. 34

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is governed by rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under that rule, “[t]he court should freely give
leave” to amend pleadings “when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962). The decision about whether to provide a party leave to amend its pleadings “is
within the discretion of the trial court.” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th
Cir. 2006) (quotations and citation omitted). “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) (quotations and citation
omitted).
The court is not persuaded by Defendant’s futility arguments. For that reason, and based
upon the liberal standard for granting leave to amend pleadings under rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to amend its complaint4 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its amended
complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

4

See docket no. 31.
2