Ennis et al v. Alder Protection Holdings et al, No. 2:2019cv00512 - Document 156 (D. Utah 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-granting 151 Motion to Amend/Correct; Motions terminated: 151 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint to Add Alder Holdings, LLC as a Defendant filed by Nicolaas Vanleeuwen, Terrance Jesclard, Shadrach Ennis. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 9/9/21. (jrj)

Download PDF
Ennis et al v. Alder Protection Holdings et al Doc. 156 Case 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP Document 156 Filed 09/09/21 PageID.2879 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION SHADRACH ENNIS, NICOLAAS VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT Case No. 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE MCCARTNEY, an individual; and DOES I–X, District Judge Clark Waddoups Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead Defendants. This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. 1 (ECF No. 151.) Plaintiffs seek to add Alder Holdings, LLC as a Defendant. To date there has been no opposition filed to Plaintiffs’ motion and the time to do so has passed. See DUCivR 7-1. The court will grant the motion. 2 In support of their motion Plaintiffs point to various state court actions filed by Defendants and assert under Federal Rule 13 that the claims brought in those actions are compulsory counterclaims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). In addition, Plaintiffs claim Alder Holdings, LLC should be named as a Defendant with relation back to the original filing date of this action. 1 The case is referred to the undersigned from District Judge Clark Waddoups. (ECF No. 7.) 2 The court elects to decide the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP Document 156 Filed 09/09/21 PageID.2880 Page 2 of 2 Rule 15(a)(2), provides that the “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. The purpose of Rule 15 is to provide litigants “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.” Hardin v. Manitowoc–Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court has stated that If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (1962). Here, the deadline for amendment of the pleadings has not passed. See Scheduling Order, p. 5, ECF No. 16. No opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion has been filed, and there is nothing before the court indicating undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, or undue prejudice to Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct is GRANTED. DATED this 9 September 2021. Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.