Poulsen v. Cash Valley Transit District et al, No. 1:2018cv00110 - Document 19 (D. Utah 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; and denying as moot Defendants' 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/30/2019. (eat)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Poulsen v. Cash Valley Transit District et al Doc. 19 __________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH JAMES POULSEN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 1:18-CV-00110-DAK CACHE VALLEY TRANSIT DISTRICT, and TODD BEUTLER, in his individual capacity, Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendant, On November 28, 2018, Defendants Cache Valley Transit District and Todd Beutler filed a Motion to Dismiss. On December 27, 2018, this court granted Plaintiff’s Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The parties agreed that Plaintiff’s response would be due on January 25, 2019. On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed his response concurrently with a Motion for Leave to Amend his complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows “[a] party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course” within “21 days after serving it” or within “21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and (B). In all other cases, parties may amend their pleadings “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). District courts “enjoy broad discretion” when deciding whether to grant leave. Ayres v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2018 WL 6706021, at *2 (D. Utah Dec. 20, 2018) (citing Patton v. Guyer, 443 F.2d 79, 86 (10th Cir. 1971)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com In this case, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint more than 21 days after Defendants served their Motion to Dismiss. Nevertheless, the parties stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond outside the 21-day period. Given the parties’ stipulation and the preliminary stage of the proceedings, the court sees no issue in allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint. The court, therefore, concludes that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is moot because it was filed in relation to Plaintiff’s original complaint, which will cease to be the active pleading once Plaintiff files his amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED this 30th day of January, 2019. DALE A. KIMBALL United States District 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.
