USA ex rel Mark Christopher Tracy v. Emigration Improvement District et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 77 Plaintiffs motion for leave to file the second amended complaint.Within 5 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file its second amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 3/21/16. (ss)

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
MARK CHRISTOPHER TRACY,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:14cv00701-JNP-PMW

EMIGRATION IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT, a Utah Special Service District,
ET AL.

District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Defendants.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is qui tam relator Mark Christopher Tracy’s (“Plaintiff”) motion
for leave to file the second amended complaint.2 Plaintiff previously filed the second amended
complaint under seal and in camera pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) and
the court’s order.3 The court has carefully reviewed the memoranda submitted by the parties,
including three different oppositions.4 Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the United States District
Court for the District of Utah Rules of Practice, the court elects to determine the motion on the

1

Docket nos. 6 and 46.

2

Docket no. 77.

3

Docket no. 42.

4

Docket nos. 80, 81 and 85.

basis of the written memoranda and finds that oral argument would not be helpful or necessary.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Under rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court should freely
give leave” to amend a complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to
amend is liberally granted to allow related issues to be decided together and on the merits. In
general, a court may refuse leave to amend only on “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.” Duncan v. Manager, Dep’t of Safety, City &
County of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotations and citation omitted). “A
proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.”
Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999).
Defendants fail to establish undue delay or prejudice, or a bad faith or dilatory motive.
Similarly, Defendants fail to establish at this stage that the amendment would clearly be futile.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the second amended complaint is GRANTED.5
Within 5 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file its second amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 21st day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

5

Docket no. 77.

2