Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02606-MSK-KLM.
May 7, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 21; filed March 28, 2008] (the "Motion to Amend"). The Court has reviewed the Motion to Amend, Defendant's Response [Docket No. 26; filed April 30, 2008], the entire case file and applicable case law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend is GRANTED, as set forth below.
Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their Complaint. 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 Devel. Corp., 157 F.3d 785, 799 (10th Cir. 1998). Amendment under the rule has been freely granted. Castleglenn, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Company, 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).
Plaintiffs' lawsuit was removed from Weld County District Court to this Court on December 14, 2007 [Docket No. 1]. In its Response, Defendant has indicated that it does not oppose Plaintiffs' request to amend [Docket No. 26]. As such, I find no evidence of undue delay, undue prejudice, bad faith or dilatory motive. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiffs are further directed that the correct caption for their case in future filings is 07-cv -02606-MSK-KLM.