Rosebrough et al v. Bannum Place, Inc., d/b/a et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting Defendant's 30 Motion for First Amendment of Affirmative Defenses. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DONALD ROSEBROUGH, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 18-cv-10222 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. BANNUM PLACE, INC., et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (ECF #30) On January 16, 2019, Defendant Bannum Place, Inc. filed a motion to amend its affirmative defenses in this action. (See Mot., ECF #30.) More specifically, Bannum Place says that it recently uncovered “Hold Harmless Agreement[s]” that “potentially insulate[ it] from all or some of the claims presented in [P]laintiffs’ lawsuit.” (Id. at Pg. ID 173.) Bannum Place therefore asks the Court to allow it to amend its affirmative defenses “to add that [P]laintiffs’ claims are barred by the Hold Harmless Agreement signed by each [Plaintiff].” (Id. at Pg. ID 174.) Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the ground that the proposed amendment is futile because the Hold Harmless Agreements are unenforceable. (See Resp., ECF #31.) 1   The Court will rule on the validity and enforceability of the Hold Harmless Agreements on summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Bannum Place’s motion to amend its affirmative defenses. The Court takes no position, at this time, as to the viability of Bannum Place’s newly-added affirmative defense. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 5, 2019 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 5, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764 2  

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?