Werner v. Edmund

D. Utah

Werner v. Edmund

DecidedAugust 2, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-00382

StatusUnknown

This text of Werner v. Edmund (Werner v. Edmund) 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

Werner v. Edmund, (D. Utah 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Jeffrey R. Werner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, AMEND v. Case No. 2:20-cv-382 DBB DBP Dan Edmund et al., District Judge David B. Barlow Defendants. Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (ECF No. 17.)1 This is a copyright infringement suit. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add allegations of newly discovered infringements. Defendants, who are in default, have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion, and the time to do so has passed. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The district court has ‘wide discretion to recognize a motion for leave to amend in the interest of a just, fair or early resolution of litigation.’” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Calderon v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1187 (10th Cir. 1999)). “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.” Id. (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)). Here, Plaintiff notes that granting this motion will actually afford Defendants an opportunity to respond and defend against the allegations, rather than face entry of default

1 This case is referred to the undersigned from District Judge David Barlow pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The court elects to decide this motion on the basis of the written memoranda. DUCivR 7-1. judgment. (ECF No. 17 p. 4.) The court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff's motion. Defendants will not be prejudiced, there is no undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by Plaintiff, and Defendants have failed to file any opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2 August 2021.

Dusyif_B-P gad United Stafes Mapistrate 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 UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Jeffrey R. Werner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, AMEND v. Case No. 2:20-cv-382 DBB DBP Dan Edmund et al., District Judge David B. Barlow Defendants. Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (ECF No. 17.)1 This is a copyright infringement suit. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add allegations of newly discovered infringements. Defendants, who are in default, have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion, and the time to do so has passed. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The district court has ‘wide discretion to recognize a motion for leave to amend in the interest of a just, fair or early resolution of litigation.’” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Calderon v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1187 (10th Cir. 1999)). “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.” Id. (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)). Here, Plaintiff notes that granting this motion will actually afford Defendants an opportunity to respond and defend against the allegations, rather than face entry of default

1 This case is referred to the undersigned from District Judge David Barlow pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The court elects to decide this motion on the basis of the written memoranda. DUCivR 7-1. judgment. (ECF No. 17 p. 4.) The court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff's motion. Defendants will not be prejudiced, there is no undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by Plaintiff, and Defendants have failed to file any opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2 August 2021.

Dusyif_B-P gad United Stafes Mapistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Werner v. Edmund, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-v-edmund-utd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack