Werner v. Edmund et al, No. 2:2020cv00382 - Document 18 (D. Utah 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting 17 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 08/02/2021. (jl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Werner v. Edmund et al Doc. 18 Case 2:20-cv-00382-DBB-DBP Document 18 Filed 08/02/21 PageID.143 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Jeffrey R. Werner, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 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. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00382-DBB-DBP Document 18 Filed 08/02/21 PageID.144 Page 2 of 2 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. 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.
