From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graeser v. Cross

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jan 13, 2011
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01923-ZLW-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01923-ZLW-MJW.

January 13, 2011


ORDER


The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 12), filed November 12, 2010. Plaintiffs seek to amend the Complaint to add a third claim for relief for "Piercing the Corporate Veil and/or Personal Liability for the Debts of LLC by its Officers and Managers." (Doc. No. 12 at 3-6).

The present motion was filed prior to the December 1, 2010, deadline for amendment of pleadings (see Doc. No. 9). Where, as here, a responsive pleading has been filed, the plaintiff may amend the complaint only by leave of court or with the written consent of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." "The purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties." Thus,

Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation omitted).

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be "freely given."

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)).

Defendants have failed to establish, or even clearly articulate any allegation of, undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility of the amendment. Because Defendants have not made such a showing, because the request for amendment was timely, and because the rules concerning amendment of pleadings "are generally liberally construed in favor of permitting amendment," it is

Arkansas-Platte Gulf Partnership v. Dow Chemical, 886 F. Supp. 762, 765 (D. Colo. 1995).

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 12) is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint on or before January 19, 2010. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, because the First Amended Complaint will supercede the original Complaint, the First Amended Complaint shall not incorporate the claims and allegations contained in the original Complaint by reference, but, rather, shall recite all original claims and allegations as well as the additional third claim for relief.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 13th day of January, 2011.


Summaries of

Graeser v. Cross

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jan 13, 2011
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01923-ZLW-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Graeser v. Cross

Case Details

Full title:JOHN GRAESER, individually, and ROENA M. ROWE, individually and as…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jan 13, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01923-ZLW-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2011)