Doe - 1 et al v. The Coliseum, Inc., d/b/a The Coliseum et al

Filing 85

OPINION and ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 79 Motion to Amend Complaint. (Amended Complaint due by 2/21/19). Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JANE DOES 1, 2 and 3, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. 17-12212
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
THE COLISEUM BAR & GRILL, INC., a
Michigan corporation, ABCDE OPERATING, LLC,
d/b/a THE PENTHOUSE CLUB, a Michigan limited
liability company, M & M ZIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
JOHNI SEEMA and ALAN MARKOVITZ, individuals,
jointly and severally,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 79)
Plaintiffs move the Court seeking leave to substitute certain opt-in Plaintiffs
as named Plaintiffs and to amend the Complaint with regard to those Plaintiffs.
The matter has been conditionally certified, the parties are in the process of
compiling the requisite information for notices and consents, and discovery has yet
to commence. Plaintiffs contend that there is no prejudice to Defendants from
permitting an amendment, and that the amendment is appropriate because it
promotes judicial efficiency and best protects the Plaintiffs’ rights. Defendants did
not file a response. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.
1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs the courts to freely grant
leave to amend “when justice so requires.” This is because, as the Supreme Court
has advised, “[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff
may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his
claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, a
motion to amend a complaint should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad
faith or for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing
party, or would be futile. Id.
There is no evidence that the amendment was brought in bad faith or for a
dilatory purpose. The amendment will not result in undue delay or prejudice.
Furthermore, the amendment would not be futile. One reason for granting leave to
amend is to permit a party to assert matters that were unknown at the time of the
original complaint. See Iron Workers’ Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. Klassic
Servs., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 541, 543 (E.D. Mich. 1996). Therefore, the Court grants
Plaintiffs leave to file their amended complaint in order to substitute certain opt-in
Plaintiffs and reflect those changes in their Complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF
No.79) is GRANTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file the Amended
Complaint no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 6, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, February 6, 2019, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

3