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)
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?