Stewart v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

D. Kansas

Stewart v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

DecidedMay 18, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-02461

StatusUnknown

This text of Stewart v. United Parcel Services, Inc. (Stewart v. United Parcel Services, 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

Stewart v. United Parcel Services, Inc., (D. Kan. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KEVIN R. STEWART, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-2461-JAR-GEB ) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s motion for leave to file an Amended Answer (ECF No. 25). As noted in the motion, Plaintiff declined to consent to amendment. However, the motion was filed April 30, 2021, making Plaintiff’s response deadline May 14, 2021. No response has been 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 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s

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)). motion for leave to file an Amended Answer (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its First Amended Answer no later than May 31, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 18th day of May, 2021.

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

KEVIN R. STEWART, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-2461-JAR-GEB ) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s motion for leave to file an Amended Answer (ECF No. 25). As noted in the motion, Plaintiff declined to consent to amendment. However, the motion was filed April 30, 2021, making Plaintiff’s response deadline May 14, 2021. No response has been 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 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s

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)). motion for leave to file an Amended Answer (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its First Amended Answer no later than May 31, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 18th day of May, 2021.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stewart v. United Parcel Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-united-parcel-services-inc-ksd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack