Glaspie v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HENRY GLASPIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 11-10087
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and
TROTT AND TROTT, P.C.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
On December 16, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants in the
Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan. Defendants removed Plaintiff’s Complaint
to this Court on January 7, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following counts: (I) violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act; (II) violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (III)
violation of Regulation Z of the federal Truth in Lending Act. Presently before the Court
is Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint, filed pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on March 17, 2011. Defendants were served with a copy of
Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to the Court’s electronic filing system; however, they have not
responded to the motion and the time for doing so has expired.
In his motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint which withdraws
Count II of his original Complaint and adds factual allegations and counts alleging a
violation of the Michigan Mortgage Brokers, Lenders and Servicers Licensing Act and
“Breach of Stipulated Agreement.” (See Mot. Ex. A.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a), leave to amend is freely granted where justice so requires. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). The Supreme Court has advised that “[i]f the underlying facts or
circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be
afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962). However, the Court further advised that a motion to
amend a complaint should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith or for
dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be
futile. Id.
This Court finds no reason to deny Plaintiff’s request to amend his Complaint.
Nothing suggests that the amendment is brought in bad faith or for dilatory purposes or
that it will prejudice Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel represents in the motion that he
recently obtained documentation precipitating the proposed amendments and thus that
there was no undue delay in filing the pending motion. Finally, the amendment should
not delay the litigation of this matter according to the Scheduling Order entered on
February 8, 2011.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his Complaint is
GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint
2
within seven (7) days of the date of this Opinion and Order.
Date: April 15, 2011
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Daniel C. Flint, Esq.
Richard Welke, Esq.
Courtney D. Roschek, Esq.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?