Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01335-REB-KMT.
June 18, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs "Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" [Doc. No. 30, filed March 3, 2008].
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), "The court should freely give leave (to amend the pleadings) when justice so requires." See also York v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5, 232 F.R.D. 648, 649 (D. Colo. 2005); Aspen Orthopaedics Sports Medicine, LLC v. Aspen Valley Hosp. Dist., 353 F.3d 832, 842 (10th Cir. 2003). Therefore, "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 amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be `freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Plaintiff explains that the amendment is needed to join her state law claims which are identical to the federal claims in order to save judicial and litigation resources. There is no objection of behalf of the defendants. "We reiterate that the district court should allow a plaintiff an opportunity to cure technical errors or otherwise amend the complaint when doing so would yield a meritorious claim." Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001); Mackey v. Lyons, 52 Fed. Appx. 468, 472, 2002 WL 31745049, 4 (10th Cir. 2002). "The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957); Triplett v. LeFlore County, Okl., 712 F.2d 444, 446 (10th Cir. 1983).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" [Doc. No. 30] is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint now attached as an Exhibit to Doc. No. 30 will be filed.