Hodges v. Walinga USA, Inc.

D. Kansas

Hodges v. Walinga USA, Inc.

DecidedMarch 7, 2022

Docket6:21-cv-01090

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Hodges v. Walinga USA, Inc., (D. Kan. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

REGAN HODGES, as representative heir at ) Law; and as the Administrator of the ) ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUNT, deceased, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 21-1090-EFM-GEB ) WALINGA USA INC. and ) WALINGA INC., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 48.) The motion was filed February 18, 2022, making Plaintiff’s response deadline March 4, 2022. No response was filed, and the Court may grant the motion as uncontested without further notice pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b). Additionally, in its discretion, the Court finds the balance of factors weigh in favor of amendment as analyzed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and justice requires amendment.1

1 The court considers a number of factors in deciding whether to allow an amendment, including timeliness, prejudice to the other party, bad faith, and futility of amendment. Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Monge v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc., No. 12–2269–EFM-JPO, 2013 WL 328957, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 328986 (D. Kan. Jan. 29, 2013). Rule 15(a)(2) provides leave “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” and the decision to allow an amendment is within the sound discretion of the court. See J. Vangel Elec., Inc. v. Sugar Creek Packing Co., No. 11–2112–EFM, 2012 WL 5995283, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2012) (citing Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, 60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir. 1995)). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their First Amended Answer no later than March 16, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 7th day of March, 2022.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

REGAN HODGES, as representative heir at ) Law; and as the Administrator of the ) ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUNT, deceased, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 21-1090-EFM-GEB ) WALINGA USA INC. and ) WALINGA INC., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 48.) The motion was filed February 18, 2022, making Plaintiff’s response deadline March 4, 2022. No response was filed, and the Court may grant the motion as uncontested without further notice pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b). Additionally, in its discretion, the Court finds the balance of factors weigh in favor of amendment as analyzed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and justice requires amendment.1

1 The court considers a number of factors in deciding whether to allow an amendment, including timeliness, prejudice to the other party, bad faith, and futility of amendment. Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Monge v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc., No. 12–2269–EFM-JPO, 2013 WL 328957, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 328986 (D. Kan. Jan. 29, 2013). Rule 15(a)(2) provides leave “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” and the decision to allow an amendment is within the sound discretion of the court. See J. Vangel Elec., Inc. v. Sugar Creek Packing Co., No. 11–2112–EFM, 2012 WL 5995283, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2012) (citing Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, 60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir. 1995)). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their First Amended Answer no later than March 16, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 7th day of March, 2022.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hodges v. Walinga USA, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-walinga-usa-inc-ksd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack