Arora v. Henry Ford Health System et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; granting 17 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (SSch)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SURRINDER ARORA,
Case No. 15-cv-13137

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING ARORA’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (document no. 13)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (document no. 17)
Pro se plaintiff Surrinder Arora ("Arora") filed a four-count complaint in Oakland
County Circuit Court against Defendants Henry Ford Health System, HFHS Short Term
Disability Plan and Long Term Disability Plan, Gerald van Grinsven, Debbie Chapman, and
Bea Page (collectively, “HFHS Defendants”), and the Life Insurance Company of North
America ("LINA"). Removal, Ex. 1, ECF No. 1. The HFHS Defendants removed the action
on September 2, 2015. Before the Court is Arora’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 13, and HFHS Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Leave to File an Amended Complaint,
ECF No. 17, with which LINA concurred, ECF No. 20.
On October 19, Arora filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and
minutes later filed a separate First Amended Complaint (Proposed) and Jury Demand,
which added new claims of breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy. ECF Nos. 13 & 14.
To the extent that Arora is seeking permission to amend her complaint, her October 19

filing does not comply with Local Rule 15.1. Under Local Rule 15.1, a party who moves to
amend a pleading “shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.” E.D. Mich.
LR 15.1. The motion must “reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not
incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” Id. While procedurally improper, the mistake
is not sufficient “grounds for denial of the motion.” Id.
Arora — who is proceeding pro se — is presumed to have intended the amended
complaint as an attachment to her Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and not
as an independently-filed amended complaint. Arora nevertheless filed the amended
complaint separately on the docket. Accordingly, the Court will deny Arora’s motion for
leave to amend without prejudice to renewal in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and
E.D. Mich. LR 15.1. See Brown v. Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:12-cv-11440, 2013 WL
1278523, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No.
12-11440, 2013 WL 1281919 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2013). The Court will also grant the
Defendants’ Motion to Strike the amended complaint remaining on the docket.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Arora’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint (document no. 13) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and E.D. Mich. LR 15.1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (document no. 17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arora’s Amended Complaint (Proposed) and Jury
Demand (document no. 14) be STRICKEN from the record.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that HFHS Defendants have ten (10) days from the date
of this order to respond to Arora’s Motion to Remand (document no. 18) and notify the
Court why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: November 12, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on November 12, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager

3