Dawn Food Products, Inc. v. VanDyke

Filing 38

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Amend. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

Case 5:21-cv-10895-JEL-DRG ECF No. 38, PageID.308 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dawn Food Products, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bruce VanDyke,
Defendant.
________________________________/

Case No. 21-10895
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge David R. Grand

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
[ECF NO. 30]
This is a trade secrets case. Plaintiff Dawn Food Products, Inc.
alleges that its former employee, Defendant Bruce VanDyke, took its
proprietary sales information to his next employer, BakeMark USA,
LLC. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its
complaint to add two additional Defendants, Steven Hill and BakeMark
USA. (See ECF No. 30.) Plaintiffs also seek to add a conspiracy claim
against all proposed Defendants and to add claims against BakeMark
USA and Hill. See id.
A party seeking to amend a claim, when such an amendment would
not be permitted as a matter of course, “may amend its pleading only

Case 5:21-cv-10895-JEL-DRG ECF No. 38, PageID.309 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 3

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Leave should be denied where the amendment demonstrates defects
“such as 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, futility of amendment, etc.” Brown v. Chapman, 814
F.3d 436, 443 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962)). “To deny a motion to amend, a court must find ‘at least some
significant showing of prejudice to the opponent.’” Ziegler v. Aukerman,
512 F.3d 777, 786 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790
F.2d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 1986)).
Defendant previously filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion to amend. (ECF No. 32.) However, during the January 10, 2022
status conference in this case, where the Court indicated its intention to
grant the motion, Defendant informed the Court that he no longer
opposes Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2022
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY

Case 5:21-cv-10895-JEL-DRG ECF No. 38, PageID.310 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 3

United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 11, 2022.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager