United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC. 12)
AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' CORRECTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC. 13)
CARAM STEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Gena Sturkey, Latoya Jones, Corlette Person, Yun Bonilla,
Suchet Guha, Nancy Tarevski, Ping Moceri, Aminat Ahmed, Jie
Wu, Junying Lu, Hexhire Agolli, Lester Berry, Faye Jones, and
Hazel Hager bring numerous state-law claims against their
former employer Duty Free Americas, Inc. This matter is
presently before the Court on plaintiffs' motions for
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their
first motion, titled “motion for leave to amend
complaint to add a new party and count, ” on November
20, 2017. (Doc. 12). Plaintiffs filed a second motion, titled
“corrected motion for leave to amend complaint to add a
new party and count, ” on November 30, 2017. (Doc.13).
Defendant responded to the first motion on December 4, 2017.
(Doc. 14). Defendant responded to the second motion on
December 14, 2017. (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs filed a reply on
December 26, 2017. (Doc. 17). Pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(f)(2), the Court shall rule without oral argument. For
the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' first motion to
amend, (Doc. 12), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and
plaintiffs' second motion to amend, (Doc. 13), is DENIED.
a national travel retailer, employed plaintiffs pursuant to a
sales and/or service contract with Detroit Metro Airport.
(Doc. 1 at PageID 2-3). On or about December 2015, defendant
lost its contract with Detroit Metro Airport. (Doc. 1 at
PageID 3). Defendant's contract term was scheduled to end
on September 19, 2016. (Id.). In February 2016, Bud
Silloway met with plaintiffs to discuss severance pay.
(Id.). Silloway stated that plaintiffs would receive
a severance payment equal to one week of wages for every year
of employment if plaintiffs worked through the end of the
Detroit Metro Airport contract. (Id.).
continued working for defendant until the Detroit Metro
Airport contract ended. (Doc. 1 at PageID 3-4). Defendant
thereafter provided plaintiffs with their severance payments.
(Doc. 1 at PageID 4). These payments, however, were equal to
half of one week's wages for every year of employment.
(Id.). In a letter dated October 6, 2016, Silloway
corrected his previous statement and explained that
defendant's usual policy only compensated for half of one
week's employment for every year of employment.
(Id.). Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Eastern
District of Michigan on January 24, 2017 to recover
additional severance payment. (Doc. 1).
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), after a
responsive pleading is filed, “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave. The court should freely grant leave
when justice so requires.” “A court need not
grant leave to amend, however, where amendment would be
‘futile.'” Miller v. Calhoun Cty.,
408 F.3d 803, 817 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Amendment of a
complaint is futile when the proposed amendment would not
permit the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.
confronted with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must construe the complaint in favor
of the plaintiff, accept the allegations of the complaint as
true, and determine whether the plaintiff's factual
allegations present plausible claims. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-56
(2007). “[N]aked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement” and “unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are
insufficient to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint need not contain
“detailed” factual allegations, but its
“factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all
of the allegations in the complaint are true.”
Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of
Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiffs' First Motion for Leave to Amend
seek leave to amend their complaint to (1) add Eva Vigh as an
additional plaintiff, and (2) add an additional count against
assert that Eva Vigh was also employed by defendant, believed
she would receive a severance payment equal to one week's
salary for each year of employment, but instead received only
half of that amount. Vigh's claims appear identical to
plaintiffs' so the Court shall GRANT plaintiffs'
leave to amend their complaint to include Vigh.
second request, however, must be denied. Plaintiffs'
motion, incorrectly filed as an exhibit, states interest in
adding a Title VII claim. (Doc. 12-1 at PageID 108). The
proposed amended complaint, (Doc. ...