From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. v. Boswell-Olsen Enters., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Aug 27, 2013
Case No. 2:12cv367 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 2:12cv367

08-27-2013

DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BOSWELL-OLSEN ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL., Defendants


MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED ANSWER


Judge Dale A. Kimball

This matter is before the court on Defendant Mark H. Olsen's Motion for Leave to Amend His Answer. The court does not believe that a hearing would significantly aid the court in its determination of this motion. Having fully considered the motions, memoranda, and declarations submitted by the parties, as well as the facts and law relevant to this motion, the court enters the following Order.

Olsen brings this motion under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15 states that "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Courts have held that refusing leave to amend is rare and 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." Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993).

Olsen seeks to file an amended Answer to correct a factual inaccuracy in his original Answer. Olsen states that his prior counsel erroneously admitted in the Answer that Olsen signed the Indemnity Agreement at issue in this case without discussing the matter with Olsen. Thus, Olsen seeks to amend his Answer to deny the allegation that he signed the Indemnity Agreement.

Plaintiff opposes the motion to amend, arguing that the motion is untimely and prejudicial. Although Olsen brought the motion before the deadline for seeking leave to amend pleadings, Plaintiff contends that the amendment is untimely because Olsen knew or should have known of the need for the amendment well before filing the motion. The court finds no basis to conclude that the motion is untimely or that there was undue delay or a dilatory motive. Olsen filed the motion before the deadline and the case is early in discovery.

Plaintiff also claims that the amendment will be prejudicial because it will require it to engage in discovery on the issue. However, this is not the type of prejudice that would justify denial of leave to amend. Therefore, the court grants Olsen's Motion for Leave to Amend His Answer. Olsen shall file his Answer that was attached as an exhibit to his motion within ten days of the date of this Order.

BY THE COURT:

______________________

DALE A. KIMBALL

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. v. Boswell-Olsen Enters., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Aug 27, 2013
Case No. 2:12cv367 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013)
Case details for

Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. v. Boswell-Olsen Enters., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BOSWELL-OLSEN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

Date published: Aug 27, 2013

Citations

Case No. 2:12cv367 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013)