Cook v. Lightning Limousine, Inc.

Full title: SHARON COOK, Plaintiff, v. LIGHTNING LIMOUSINE, INC., TODD M. DALESSANDRO…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 27, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-cv-00459-RPM-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 27, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-00459-RPM-BNB.

September 27, 2005

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before me on the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (the "First Motion to Amend"), filed September 6, 2005. Also pending is the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings to Allege Exemplary Damages Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-102 (the "Second Motion to Amend"), filed September 23, 2005.

The First Motion to Amend seeks leave to add two new parties — Smiddy Limousine Corporation and Kevin Smiddy — and three new causes of action — fraudulent conveyance; negligent hiring; and successor liability. It does not seek to add a claim for punitive damages.

The Second Motion to Amend, filed only four days ago and five days before the hearing, seeks to add a claim for punitive damages. The Second Motion to Amend states:

Plaintiff previously filed [the First Motion to Amend] to add claims and parties. Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking to add Kevin Smiddy and Smiddy Limousine Corporation as defendants and also to add claims of negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and entrustment as well as a claim for fraudulent conveyance. Plaintiff incorporates that [First Motion to Amend] as if fully set forth herein. That motion is pending and the Court is holding a hearing on that previously filed [First Motion to Amend] on September 28, 2005. Plaintiff suggests and requests that this [Second Motion to Amend] also be considered and heard at that hearing.

* * *

Because of its dependence on the claims and parties set forth in the previously filed [First Motion to Amend] and the proposed Amended Complaint, the attached proposed Second Amended Complaint contains the amendments sought to be added by the previously filed and pending [First Motion to Amend] and the proposed Amended Complaint.

Second Motion to Amend, at nn. 3, 8.

The plaintiff acknowledges that the issue of the two amendments should be considered at the same time. I will not consider the Second Motion to Amend, filed only four days ago, on unreasonably short notice, however. Nor will I cull through two briefs when only one is appropriate.

IT IS ORDERED that the First Motion to Amend and the Second Motion to Amend are each DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The plaintiff may file a single motion to amend, setting forth all amendments sought, within ten days of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the First Motion to Amend, set for September 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., is VACATED.