Transport Systems, Inc. v. Amazon et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's and setting Briefing Schedule 37 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Transport Systems, Inc.., ( Amended Response to Amazon's Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/7/2019) (Amazon's reply Brief due by 5/21/2019)--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS,
LLC,
Plaintiff

Case No. 2:18-CV-11286
District Judge George Caram Steeh
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
AMAZON
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT FOR SOLE PURPOSE OF CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING
THE PLAINTIFF/TITLE HOLDER OF THE ASSET CONVERTED (DE 37)
AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING AMAZON’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend complaint for sole purpose of correctly identifying the plaintiff/title
holder of the asset converted and request for revised scheduling order regarding
Amazon’s motion for summary judgment (DE 37), Amazon’s response (DE 39),
and Plaintiff’s reply (DE 40). This matter has been referred to me for all nondispositive pretrial proceedings (DE 24), and a hearing was held on Plaintiff’s
motion on April 16, 2019, at which the Court entertained oral argument.

A. Plaintiff’s request amend or substitute parties
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and consistent
with the Court’s ruling and reasoning on the record, which is hereby incorporated
by reference as though fully restated herein, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
complaint (DE 37) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend under Rule
15(a) is DENIED because the October 31, 2018 deadline for amending pleadings
has passed, Plaintiff failed to seek leave to amend prior to that date, and it has
failed to show good cause to amend that scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) &
16. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend under Rule 15(b) is DENIED because
that Rule expressly only applies to “amendments during and after trial.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(b).
And, Plaintiff’s request for leave to substitute parties under Rule 17(a)(3) is
DENIED. While the initial failure to name the proper entity plaintiff could be
deemed an “understandable mistake” in this case, determination of the proper
entity plaintiff was not difficult and should have been made before this lawsuit was
filed. Nevertheless, the proper entity plaintiff was certainly was known to
Plaintiff’s counsel by at least (and likely before) August 29, 2018, the date certain
title documents were produced in response to Amazon’s discovery requests. Yet
Plaintiff inexplicably failed to seek leave to amend the complaint to substitute the
proper party plaintiff at any time during the two months preceding the October 31,
2

2018 deadline for amending pleadings contained in the scheduling order in this
case. (DE 15.) The identity of the proper entity plaintiff was further confirmed
during the January 30, 2019 deposition of Ali Saleh, owner of Plaintiff Transport
Systems, LLC, who testified that the trailer at issue was owned by an entity named
“Sure Express LLC.” Still, Plaintiff waited until March 19, 2019, over two weeks
after Amazon filed its motion for summary judgment ̶ arguing in part that Plaintiff
lacks standing to prosecute its claims because it does not own the trailer at issue ̶
to finally bring the instant motion to amend the complaint to “correctly identify[]
the plaintiff/title holder of the asset converted.” (DEs 35, 39.) While there has
been no showing that Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith or “tactical maneuvering,”
this delay in naming the proper entity plaintiff is unreasonable. See Tool-Plas
Systems, Inc. v. Camaco, LLC, No. 09-12003, 2010 WL 1347686, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Mar. 31, 2010) (citation omitted). Further, allowing substitution at this late
date would necessitate additional discovery, after the discovery deadline has
passed and Amazon’s motion for summary judgment is pending, and thus would
result in undue prejudice to Amazon.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint (DE 37) is
DENIED.

3

B. Briefing schedule regarding Amazon’s motion for summary
judgment
Plaintiff also requested a revised scheduling order regarding Amazon’s
motion for summary judgment. (DE 37.) Plaintiff’s response was initially due on
March 21, 2019. (DE 36.) On March 21, 2019, the Court entered a Text-Only
Order amending that briefing schedule. However, that same day, prior to seeing
the Court’s text-only order, Plaintiff filed its response to Amazon’s motion for
summary judgment. (DE 39.) In accordance with the March 21, 2019 Text-Only
Order, Plaintiff may withdraw its previously filed response (DE 39), and file an
amended response to Amazon’s motion for summary judgment on or before May
7, 2019, with Amazon’s reply brief due on or before May 21, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2019

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on April 17, 2019, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

4