Rose et al v. Roasting Plant, Inc. et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 9 Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants' 12 Motion to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ELIZABETH ROSE et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-10436
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
ROASTING PLANT, INC. et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF #9) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (ECF # 12)
In this action, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendant Roasting
Plant, Inc. (“Roasting Plant”) breached its payment obligations under a promissory
note. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on the breach-of-note claim.
The motion is premature and will be DENIED.
There has been no discovery. The Court has not yet even held a Scheduling
Conference nor issued a Scheduling Order.
Roasting Plant’s response to the
motion outlines a number of potentially meritorious defenses to the breach-of-note
claim. (Roasting Plant moves to add those defenses in an Amended Answer, and
as set forth below, that motion is granted.) Roasting Plant has also filed an
affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlining
discovery it has not been able to conduct and that it will conduct, and Roasting
Plant has shown how that discovery may be relevant to and may support its
defenses to the breach of note claim. Plaintiffs’ reply has not persuaded the Court
that it may hold at this point that Roasting Plant’s proposed defenses must fail as a
matter of law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment (ECF #9) is DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(b)(2), Plaintiffs may not file another motion for summary judgment in this
action without prior leave of the Court.
Defendants have moved for leave to file an Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses. (See ECF #12.) That motion is GRANTED. The filing of
the amended pleading at this very early stage in the proceedings will not unfairly
prejudice Plaintiffs. And while Plaintiffs complain that the proposed affirmative
defenses are deficient because Defendants do not plead sufficient facts, the facts
and factual allegations (or at least a fair bit of them) supporting the defenses are set
forth in some detail in Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. (See ECF #11.) Plaintiffs have sufficient notice of
the defenses to be able to respond to them. Defendants shall file their Amended
Answer and Affirmative Defenses within seven days.
The parties shall appear for a Scheduling Conference at a date and time to be
set by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 1, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on May 1, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary
s/Holly A. Monda
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?