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.

Nolan v. Thomas

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

March 27, 2017

David Nolan, Plaintiff,
v.
Ronald Thomas, Defendant.

          Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Mag. Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT [40]

          Judith E. Levy United States District Judge

         Before the Court is plaintiff David Nolan's motion to amend the complaint against defendant Ronald Thomas. (Dkt. 40.)

         For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff David Nolan has filed a complaint against defendant Ronald Thomas in relation to the dissolution of an alleged business partnership between the parties. The facts of this case are set forth in detail in the Court's December 20, 2016 opinion and order (Dkt. 27), and are incorporated by reference here. In the complaint, plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract (Count I), breach of fiduciary duties (Count II), violations of the Michigan Uniform Partnership Act (Count III), a formal account (Count IV), fraud and constructive fraud (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI). (See Dkt. 1.)

         On February 1, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss. Of relevance here is Count V, alleging fraud and constructive fraud, which the Court dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. 34 at 2.)

         On March 2, 2017, plaintiff filed this motion to amend the complaint, requesting to replead Count V as two separate counts and add a new count for conversion. (Dkt. 40 at 5.) Defendant objects to the motion insofar as plaintiff seeks to add a claim for conversion. (Dkt. 41 at 7-8.)

         II. Legal Standard

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) instructs courts to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” But “[a] motion to amend a complaint should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.” Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).

         III. Analysis

         Plaintiff seeks to replead the fraud and constructive fraud claim and to add a count for conversion.

         Fraud and ...


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.