Macfarlane v. Millard County et al, No. 2:2017cv00599 - Document 46 (D. Utah 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting 38 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint 2 . Signed by Judge David Sam on 9/20/17. (jlw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Macfarlane v. Millard County et al Doc. 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION TODD MCFARLANE, et al, and JOHN/JANE DOES A-Z, Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION MILLARD COUNTY, Body Politic & Political Subdivision of the State of Utah; DEAN DRAPER, Millard County Commissioner; JAMES WITHERS, Millard County Commissioner; WAYNE JACKSON, Millard County Commissioner; ALAN ROPER, former Millard County Commissioner; BONNIE GEHRE, Millard County Auditor; and PATRICK FINLINSON, Millard County Attorney, individually, and in their official capacities and; JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, 2:17-CV-00599-DS District Judge David Sam Defendants. Before the court is Mr. Macfarlane’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Doc. No. 38. Plaintiff asserts that he is requesting an order granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to substantially narrow, refine, simplify, focus and clarify his claims and causes of action. FRCP 15(a) provides: “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The court hereby grants leave to amend. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, alleging that Plaintiffs failed to give adequate reasons for the untimeliness of their proposed amendments, the proposed amendments would be futile, and the amendments would cause undue prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com Defendants also complain that Plaintiffs “have continually flouted the rules that govern litigants in this court, mixed and matched legal standards to their liking, and created requests for relief that do not exist.” Doc. No. 42, at 9. The court, like the defendants, have observed that Plaintiffs have established a pattern of inundating the Court with multiple, often unmeritorious, filings in unreasonably close succession. While this is unacceptable, Plaintiffs insist that allowing them to amend the Complaint one more time will help to clarify, focus, simplify, prioritize, and streamline the case, something that is much needed in this case. For the above reasons, and good cause appearing, the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 38) is hereby GRANTED. So ordered. DATED this 20th day of September, 2017. BY THE COURT: DAVID SAM United States District Judge
]]>
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.
