Saito’s attorney, Mark A. Scoggins, and UMDA’s counsel, Robert T. Torres, said the additional 30-day extension from April 8 to file an amended complaint will enable the parties to continue discussing possible resolution of their dispute.
Saito filed a complaint against UMDA on Nov. 17, 2010 alleging breach of contract and illegal termination.
He was terminated on Dec. 7, 2009 by UMDA Chairman Jose Lifoifoi.
Saito claimed then-UMDA president Russell Snow orally promised his contract would be renewed for another two years from March 29, 2009.
But no contract was presented as exhibit to the court although Saito worked for UMDA for the next nine months despite the absence of such contract.
Last February 11, Designated Judge Marilyn L. Huff dismissed with prejudice Saito’s complaint against UMDA and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as moot.
However, the judge applied the leave to amend rule in the case at hand saying such should be applied with “extreme liberality.”
“As such, “[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — [leave to amend] should as the rules require, be ‘freely given,’” she said.
“Here, no reason for denying leave to amend appears. Accordingly, the court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within thirty days. In drafting any amended complaint, plaintiff should take care to specify his claims to provide adequate notice to UMDA,” she added.
