From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SLAM ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING INC. v. PAMPERIN

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Jan 19, 2007
Case No. 06-C-359 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. 06-C-359.

January 19, 2007


ORDER


Defendants Daniel Pamperin and Lori Pamperin have moved for leave to file an amended pleading in the above matter. They seek to file cross claims against the other defendants. The other defendants do not object, as long as they are free to file responsive pleadings and cross claims.

Motions to amend pleadings are to be freely granted when justice so requires and the amendment will not cause undue delay or unfair prejudice to the other parties. Since the affected parties do not object to the proposed amendment, the court finds that the prerequisites for granting the motion are met. Accordingly, defendants Lori and Daniel Pamperin are hereby granted leave to file an amended pleading within the next ten days. The defendants may file their responsive pleadings and cross claims, if any, within twenty days thereafter.

In the future, counsel should also note that the local rules of this district require that a party submitting a motion to amend "must attach to the motion the original of the proposed amended pleading" Civil L.R. 15.1. Because there is no objection to the proposed amendment and in the interest of saving time, the court has granted the motion despite counsel's failure to comply with the local rules. Counsel should be aware, however, that failure to comply with the local rules is likely to result in a denial of such motions in the future.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

SLAM ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING INC. v. PAMPERIN

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Jan 19, 2007
Case No. 06-C-359 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2007)
Case details for

SLAM ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING INC. v. PAMPERIN

Case Details

Full title:SLaM ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING INC., Plaintiff, v. DANIEL PAMPERIN, LORI…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Date published: Jan 19, 2007

Citations

Case No. 06-C-359 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2007)