Empire Staple Co. v. SouthernCarlson, Inc. and James J. Wydra, Jr.

Empire Staple · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · December 19, 2025 · No. 23-cv-02200-DDD-CYC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Empire Staple Co.’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim for exemplary damages under Colorado law. The court held that the plaintiff established good cause under Rule 16, satisfied Rule 15, and presented prima facie proof of a triable issue of willful and wanton conduct under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff established good cause to modify the scheduling-order deadline because discovery supplying the prima facie evidence for the exemplary-damages claim continued after the deadline, and plaintiff moved within a reasonable period after obtaining materially relevant evidence.
  2. Leave to amend was appropriate because defendants did not establish undue delay, undue prejudice, bad faith, or futility.
  3. Plaintiff's failure initially to address Rules 15 and 16 did not warrant summary denial because the parties fully briefed the issue and authority suggested that section 13-21-102 may govern exemplary-damages amendments.
  4. Plaintiff established prima facie proof of a triable issue of exemplary damages because the evidence, viewed favorably to plaintiff, supported an inference of willful and wanton conduct.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to amend after the scheduling-order deadline.
  2. Whether justice required leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), notwithstanding defendants' assertions of undue delay and prejudice.
  3. Whether plaintiff presented prima facie proof of a triable issue of exemplary damages under Colorado Revised Statutes section 13-21-102.
  4. Whether plaintiff's failure initially to discuss Rules 15 and 16 warranted summary denial of the motion.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (22)

  • Castle v. Nolan, No. 20-cv-02481-DDD-STV, 2023 WL 11903564, at *2, *4 (D. Colo. July 21, 2023)(followed)
  • Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc., No. 19-cv-02082-CMA-NRN, 2020 WL 6290375, at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 27, 2020)(followed)
  • Midtown Invs., LP v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 641 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1072 n.2 (D. Colo. 2022)(followed)
  • Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895, 902 (10th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Headrick v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 24 F.3d 1272, 1278 (10th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Uhl v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 3d 1176, 1187 (D. Colo. 2025)(considered)
  • Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat'l Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Am. Ins. Co. v. Pine Terrace Homeowners Assoc., No. 20-cv-00654-DDD-MDB, 2022 WL 5240648, at *3-*4 (D. Colo. Oct. 6, 2022), recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17976699, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 23, 2022)(followed)
  • Schimek v. Owners Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-02197-PAB-STV, 2017 WL 3621833, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 23, 2017)(followed)
  • Calderón v. City and Cnty. of Denver, No. 18-cv-00756-PAB-CYC, 2025 WL 938494, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2025)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…