Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05010/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barbara Martin Elliott
Appellant
Fae A. Moreland
Appellee

Document Text:

FILLU 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALlJnited States CouCi rtofi Appeal, · Tenth reu t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DECO 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

BARBARA MARTIN ELLIOTT, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FAE A. MORELAND, individually and as 

County Clerk of Washington County, 

Oklahoma, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-5010 

(D.C. No. 89-C-0115-B) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before BALDOCK and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, District Judge, 

District Court for the District of Colorado, 

designation. 

United States 

sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5010 Document: 010110151447 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 1 
Plaintiff appeals from the district court order denying her 

motion to amend the complaint, under Fed. R. Civ. P. lS(a), one 

year after that court dismissed all of her causes of action. This 

court will not disturb the district court's disposition of a 

motion to amend absent an abuse of discretion. Woolsey v. Marion 

Lab .• Inc., 934 F.2d 1452, 1462 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff filed her complaint December 4, 1989. Following 

service of the complaint, defendant, on January 10, 1990, filed a 

motion to dismiss. On June 6, 1990, after plaintiff had failed to 

appear at a scheduling conference and had failed to respond to the 

motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed all of plaintiff's 

claims. One year after that dismissal, plaintiff filed her motion 

for leave to amend her complaint, asserting that she had failed to 

take any action in the case up until that time due to her 

attorney's "extreme" workload and conflicting court schedules. 

The district court denied leave to amend based upon plaintiff's 

undue delay in asserting the motion. Plaintiff appeals. 

"In the absence of any apparent or declared reason - such as 

undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 

movant, , etc. - the leave sought should, as the rules 

require, be 'freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962); see also Triplett v. Leflore County, 712 F.2d 444, 446 

(10th Cir. 1983). Nonetheless, "[u]ntimeliness alone may be a 

sufficient basis for denial of leave to amend." Las Vegas Ice & 

Cold Storage Co. v. Far West Bank, 893 F.2d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 

1990). Further, "a district court acts within the bounds of its 

discretion when it denies leave to amend for 'untimeliness' or 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5010 Document: 010110151447 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 2 
'undue delay.'" First City Bank. N.A. v. Air Capitol Aircraft 

Sales. Inc., 820 F.2d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 1987). Because 

plaintiff did not file her motion to amend until one year after 

the district court had dismissed all of her claims, the district 

court did not err in denying the motion. See. e.g., Woolsey, 934 

F.2d at 1462; Las Vegas Ice & Cold Storage Co., 893 F.2d at 1185; 

First City Bank, 820 F.2d at 1132-33; A.E. v. Mitchell, 724 F.2d 

864, 868-69 (10th Cir. 1983). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-5010 Document: 010110151447 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 3