Dawn Food Products, Inc. v. VanDyke

Filing 38

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

Download PDF
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

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?