Selou v. Integrity Solution Services, Inc.

Filing 21

OPINION and ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Amend/Correct, and (2) Denying as Moot Defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JODI SELOU,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 15-10927
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
INTEGRITY SOLUTION SERVICES
INC., INTEGRITY ACQUISITION, LLC,
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., and
RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND (ECF NO. 19) AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 14.)
On February 6, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in state court against
Defendant Integrity Solutions Services, Inc. (“Integrity”), alleging violations of
state and federal law as a result of Integrity’s conduct in connection with the
collection of a debt from Plaintiff. Integrity removed Plaintiff’s Complaint to
federal court on March 27, 2015, on the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint, adding as Integrity
Acquisition, LLC (“IA”), Central Credit Services, Inc. (“CCS”) and Radius Global
Solutions, LLC (“Radius”) as defendants. (ECF No. 8.) On May 27, 2015, IA,
CCS, and Radius filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14.) The motion
has been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) On August 12, 2015, however, Plaintiff
filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint in order to name two
additional defendants: Navient Corporation and LiveVox, Inc. (ECF No. 19.) The
currently named defendants filed a response to the motion, indicating that they do
not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint, although they “deny all
liability and claims of wrongdoing alleged in the proposed Second Amended
Complaint and aver that they have meritorious defenses to all claims.” (ECF No.
20 at Pg ID 241.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “the court should freely
give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” The Court may deny leave to
amend, however, for such reasons as “where there is 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 the amendment[.]” Benzon v.
Morgan Stanley Distribs., Inc., 420 F.3d 598, 613 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “It is settled that the grant of leave to amend
the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971).

2

As indicated, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend her
complaint and-- perhaps therefore-- do not set forth any reason why leave should
not be granted. This Court finds no reason. The Court therefore is GRANTING
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the amended pleading attached to her motion.
Plaintiff shall file her Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this
decision.
Turning to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, because the motion is directed at
a complaint that will soon be superseded by Plaintiff’s amended pleading, the
Court is DENYING the motion AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 19, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 19, 2015, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

3