Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-02574-RPM-KLM.
February 23, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 12; Filed January 27, 2009] (the "Motion"). Defendants have not filed a response to the Motion. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file and applicable case law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Plaintiff requests leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Motion [#12] at 1. This case was removed to this Court on November 25, 2008. A Scheduling Conference has not yet been held in this case, and no deadline for amendment of pleadings has been set.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides for liberal amendment of pleadings. Leave to amend is discretionary with the court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Viernow v. Euripides Dev. Corp., 157 F.3d 785, 799 (10th Cir. 1998). Amendment under the rule has been freely granted. Castleglenn, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Co., 984 F.2d 1571 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). "Refusing leave to amend is 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). Considering that Defendants apparently do not oppose Plaintiff's Motion, and that this case is still in the early stages of litigation, the Court finds that justice requires that Plaintiff be allowed to amend his Complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 12; Filed January 27, 2009] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 12-3] is accepted for filing as of the date of this Order.