Cronkright v. Diversified Consultants Inc

Filing 6

ORDER granting 3 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Diversified Consultants Inc answer due 6/17/2013.; granting 5 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint - Amended Complaint to be filed by 6/3/2013. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JASON CRONKRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-11183

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Jason Cronkright sued Defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc., in small
claims court for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et
seq. Defendant timely removed and moved for an extension of time to respond to the
complaint. Defendant sought additional time so that it could speak with Plaintiff, gain a
better understanding of his claims, and discuss whether settlement was an option.
Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to include additional factual allegations and
claims that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692
et seq., the Michigan Occupational Code, Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.915, and the
Michigan Collection Practices Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.252.
The parties engaged in settlement negotiations but were unable to reach an
agreement. A scheduling conference was held, during which the parties appeared to
agree that Plaintiff could amend his complaint and that Defendant should be given an
extension to respond. Indeed, neither party has filed a response to the other’s motion.

A hearing on the motions is unnecessary, see E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), and both will be
granted.
A plaintiff may amend a complaint with the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Leave
should be freely given “[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 the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Forman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges new
facts and claims not included in his small claims court complaint. There does not
appear to be a reason to deny leave, and the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion.
The court may, for good cause, extend the time for a defendant to respond to a
complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Here, Defendant sought an extension so that it
could clarify Plaintiff’s claims and discuss settlement. Good cause exists to grant
Defendant an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint
[Dkt. # 5] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file his amended complaint by June 3,
2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to
respond to Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. # 3] is GRANTED. Defendant is DIRECTED to
respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint by June 17, 2013.

2

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 31, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\13-11183.CRONKRIGHT.Grant.Mot.Amend.Compl.wpd

3