Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kaminski v. Coulter

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 3, 2016

CHARLES N. KAMINSKI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
BRAD COULTER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT [#90]

          HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to File First Amended and Verified Complaint, filed on July 5, 2016. This matter is fully briefed and the Court concludes that oral argument will not aid in the disposition of this matter. Accordingly, the Court will resolve the present motion on the submitted briefs. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' Motion to File First Amended and Verified Complaint.

         II.BACKGROUND

         On August 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that various Defendants had violated their constitutional rights under the Contract clause, the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. The Complaint alleged damages stemming from the appointment of an Emergency Manager, Defendant Brad Coulter, for the City of Lincoln Park and Coulter's subsequent orders replacing retiree healthcare with stipends.

         In lieu of responding to the Complaint, the Police and Fire Retirement Commission Defendants, the Municipal Employees Retirement Commission Defendants and the State Treasurer Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

         On May 5, 2016, this Court issued an Opinion and Order on the parties' pending Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Relevant to the instant motion, the Court dismissed Count II, or Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to petition the Government claim in its entirety. The Court's Opinion and Order concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a First Amendment claim because they did not allege that they have been prevented from petitioning the Government. See Dkt. No. 79 at 16.

         III. LAW & ANALYSIS

         A. Standard for Amendments

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs the amendment of pleadings. It states in relevant part:

         (a) Amendments Before Trial.

         (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it,
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.