From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vigil v. Petkoff

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Oct 17, 2011
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01804-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01804-RBJ-KLM.

October 17, 2011


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 1] [Docket No. 13; Filed October 11, 2011] (the "Motion"). A Scheduling Order has not yet been entered in this case. Accordingly, the Motion was timely filed.

The Court has discretion to grant a party leave to amend his pleadings. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) ("The court should freely give leave when justice so requires."). "In 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 the amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be `freely given.'" Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2)). Potential prejudice to defendants is the most important factor in considering whether a plaintiff should be permitted to amend his complaint. Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006). "Courts typically find prejudice only when the [proposed] amendment unfairly affects the defendants in terms of preparing their defense to [claims asserted in the] amendment." Id. (quotation omitted).

After carefully reviewing Plaintiff's original Complaint [#1] and proposed Amended Complaint [#13-1], the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the proposed amendment is simply an effort to correct paragraph numbering and internal references within the body of the Complaint. See Motion [#13] at 2. The proposed amendment does not add any new claims. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by allowing the filing of the Amended Complaint. Moreover, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for amending his original Complaint [#1]. Permitting such amendment will benefit both parties and the Court by clarifying the issues in the case.

For the foregoing reasons, and considering that leave to amend should be freely given,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#13] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#13-1] for filing as of the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before October 31, 2011.


Summaries of

Vigil v. Petkoff

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Oct 17, 2011
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01804-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2011)
Case details for

Vigil v. Petkoff

Case Details

Full title:CLOVIS VIGIL, Plaintiff, v. KIEL PETKOFF, JOHN SALAZAR, and THE CITY OF…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Oct 17, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01804-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2011)