Coppock v. Resource Management

D. Utah

Coppock v. Resource Management

DecidedOctober 13, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-00775

StatusUnknown

This text of Coppock v. Resource Management (Coppock v. Resource Management) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coppock v. Resource Management, (D. Utah 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

TEOTA COPPOCK, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING [51] PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

vs. Case No. 2:19-CV-00775 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., District Judge David Barlow Defendant.

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint.1 Plaintiff asks for leave to file an amended complaint correcting an inaccurate factual statement in paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint regarding the date of the letter she received an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue Letter as to Defendant Resource Management, Inc (RMI).2 This factual mistake was also raised at the hearing on RMI’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings held on September 28, 2021. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” And the court is to “freely give leave when justice so requires.”3 Plaintiff’s motion indicates that RMI has not provided consent to amend the complaint. So, the court must determine if justice requires allowing the amendment. While the motion to amend standard is not without limits, the Tenth Circuit has

1 ECF No. 51, filed October 12, 2021. 2 Id. at 1. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). indicated that it is a liberal standard and “reflects the basic policy that pleadings should enable a claim to be heard on its merits.” Because of the liberal standard in allowing amendments, the need for pleadings to contain accurate factual statements, and the minimal prejudice to RMI in allowing the amendment, the court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file the Second Amended Complaint within fourteen days of this order.

Dated October 13, 2021. BY THE COURT ats United States District Judge

4 Albers v. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm’rs of Jefferson Cnty. Colo., 771 F.3d 697, 706 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

TEOTA COPPOCK, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING [51] PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

vs. Case No. 2:19-CV-00775 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., District Judge David Barlow Defendant.

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint.1 Plaintiff asks for leave to file an amended complaint correcting an inaccurate factual statement in paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint regarding the date of the letter she received an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue Letter as to Defendant Resource Management, Inc (RMI).2 This factual mistake was also raised at the hearing on RMI’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings held on September 28, 2021. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” And the court is to “freely give leave when justice so requires.”3 Plaintiff’s motion indicates that RMI has not provided consent to amend the complaint. So, the court must determine if justice requires allowing the amendment. While the motion to amend standard is not without limits, the Tenth Circuit has

1 ECF No. 51, filed October 12, 2021. 2 Id. at 1. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). indicated that it is a liberal standard and “reflects the basic policy that pleadings should enable a claim to be heard on its merits.” Because of the liberal standard in allowing amendments, the need for pleadings to contain accurate factual statements, and the minimal prejudice to RMI in allowing the amendment, the court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file the Second Amended Complaint within fourteen days of this order.

Dated October 13, 2021. BY THE COURT ats United States District Judge

4 Albers v. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm’rs of Jefferson Cnty. Colo., 771 F.3d 697, 706 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coppock v. Resource Management, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppock-v-resource-management-utd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack