From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saint Louis Univ. v. Medtronic Navigation, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 30, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW

01-30-2013

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC. and MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC., Defendants.


MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff Saint Louis University's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 33) is GRANTED for the following reasons. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." "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." Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)). "The liberal granting of motions for leave to amend reflects the basic policy that pleadings should enable a claim to be heard on its merits." Carr v. Hanley, 2009 WL 4693870, *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2009) (quoting Calderon v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999)).

In their Response (Docket No. 38), defendants argue that plaintiff's proposed amendments are futile because plaintiff does not state a claim for piercing the corporate veil. Judge Ebel has previously addressed the futility issue in the case of General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steel Wise, LLC, 2008 WL 2520423, at *4 (D. Colo. June 20, 2008). In the General Steel case, Judge Ebel stated, in pertinent part: "Defendants' futility argument seems to place the cart before the horse. Rather than force a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 15(a) opposition brief, the defendants may be better served by waiting to assert Rule 12 motions until the operative complaint is in place." For the same reason expressed by Judge Ebel in General Steel, this court finds that plaintiff's motion to amend should be granted. Plaintiff is directed to separately file its Second Amended Complaint.


Summaries of

Saint Louis Univ. v. Medtronic Navigation, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 30, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2013)
Case details for

Saint Louis Univ. v. Medtronic Navigation, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC. and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 30, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2013)