United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Diamond L. Daniel, Plaintiff,
Heartland Employment Services, LLC., Defendant.
Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge.
a whistleblower action. Plaintiff brings this claim against
her former employer and alleges that she was unlawfully
terminated after she reported a suspected violation of
Michigan law. This action was originally brought in the
Circuit Court for Macomb County, then removed based on
diversity. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint . For the reasons
stated below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's
Daniel (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed this
action on March 14, 2016. Dkt. No. 1-2, p. 2 (Pg. ID 11). On
April 5, 2016, the Defendant timely removed this case to
federal court and filed its answer to the Complaint. Dkt. No.
1. On July 12, 2016, the Court issued an amended scheduling
order. Dkt. No. 9. Pursuant to that scheduling order,
discovery was due by December 15, 2016, the motion cut-off
was set for January 17, 2017. Id. A jury trial is
currently set for June 20, 2017. Id.
November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
Amend her Complaint. Dkt. No. 17. Concurrence was denied.
Id., p. 2 (Pg. ID 85). Plaintiff seeks leave to
amend her Complaint to “raise an unpleaded issue”
and to “clarify the extent of her whistle-blowing
a non-dispositive motion, therefore a response must have been
filed within 14 days of service of the motion. See
LR 7.1(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff served the Defendants on December
1, 2016. Dkt. No. 18. Therefore, Defendants had until
December 15, 2016 to file their Response to the
Plaintiff's motion. As of December 19, 2016, the
Defendants have not filed a Response.
party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (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 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever
is earlier.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. “In all other
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave. The
court should freely give leave when justice so
case, the Plaintiff is outside the window for amending the
Complaint as a matter of course. Because the opposing party
does not consent, Plaintiff requires the Court's leave.
courts have discretion to permit or deny amendment after a
defendant files an answer to a plaintiffs complaint”
United States ex rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed
Conservancy Dist., No. 15-4406, 2016 WL 6832974, at *7
(6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016). “Despite [Rule 15's]
liberal amendment policy, denial may be appropriate when
there is ‘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, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9
L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
absence of a Response from the Defendant, the Court compared
the original Complaint to the proposed Complaint. The
Plaintiff made the following changes to the original
• Amending the Defendant's name to reflect the real
party in interest. See Dkt. No. 17-1, ...