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
- 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.
- Leave to amend was appropriate because defendants did not establish undue delay, undue prejudice, bad faith, or futility.
- 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.
- 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
- Whether plaintiff established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to amend after the scheduling-order deadline.
- Whether justice required leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), notwithstanding defendants' assertions of undue delay and prejudice.
- Whether plaintiff presented prima facie proof of a triable issue of exemplary damages under Colorado Revised Statutes section 13-21-102.
- 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 PDFLoading document…