Chiaverini et al v. City of Napoleon, et al
Filing
60
Memorandum Opinion and Order: re 43 . Over Plaintiffs' objection, I conclude the proposed amendment here would not be futile. Therefore, in the interest of justice, Defendants' motion for leave to amend is granted. (Doc. No. 43). Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 2/22/2019. (SG,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Jascha Chiaverini, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-2527
Plaintiffs
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
City of Napoleon, et al.,
Defendants
After recently acquiring a transcript from a preliminary hearing conducted by the Napoleon
Municipal Court on December 12, 2016, Defendants City of Napoleon, Nicholas Evanoff, Jamie
Mendez, David Steward, and Robert Weitzel moved for leave to amend their answer. (Doc. No.
43). Specifically, Defendants seek to add the affirmative defenses of collateral estoppel, waiver, and
estoppel. (Id.). Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition, alleging the proposed amendment
would be futile. (Doc. No. 46). Defendants replied. (Doc. No. 51).
Because the time to amend as of right has passed and Plaintiffs oppose amendment,
Defendants may amend the answer only with leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. But leave to amend need not be granted if the
amendment would be futile. See Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803, 817 (6th Cir. 2005). Over
Plaintiffs’ objection, I conclude the proposed amendment here would not be futile. Therefore, in
the interest of justice, Defendants’ motion for leave to amend is granted. (Doc. No. 43).
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
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?