ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, Senior District Judge.

This matter is presently before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss [docket entry 13] and on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (couched within its response to defendant's motion to dismiss). Response and reply briefs have been filed. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide the motions without a hearing.

This is a replevin action. Plaintiff seeks to recover certain manufacturing equipment allegedly in defendant's possession. Plaintiff claims it has a security interest in the equipment based on various "Agreements signed by Plaintiff and Ascalon Enterprises LLC, Revstone Industries, LLC, and George S. Hofmeister, . . ." Compl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff also seeks damages for defendant's alleged unjust enrichment from using the equipment without paying for its use.

In its motion to dismiss, defendant Gallant Steel, Inc. ("Gallant") argues among other things that the documents cited in the complaint do not give plaintiff an enforceable security interest in the equipment. In response, plaintiff appears to acknowledge that the security interest it seeks to enforce was not created by the agreements specified in the complaint, but rather by a different security agreement (a copy of which is attached as Ex. 1 to plaintiff's response brief), in combination with the others, and a UCC financing statement (a copy of which is attached as Ex. 2 to plaintiff's response brief), neither of which documents were cited in or attached to the complaint. Plaintiff asks that the pleading defect be excused because defense counsel is aware of Ex. 1. Alternatively, plaintiff asks that the Court allow it to amend the complaint to cure the pleading defect.

Dismissal of the complaint in its current form is clearly appropriate, as it does not "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2007). Specifically, the documents cited in the complaint1 do not establish that plaintiff has a security interest in "all equipment referenced in Exhibit A to Exhibit 4." Compl. ¶ 12. While the complaint alleges that defendant is using this equipment, is benefitting from the use thereof and has not paid for it, id. ¶¶ 12-14, the documents show no connection at all between plaintiff and the equipment, to say nothing of plaintiff's, or anyone else's, security interest therein. As noted in the brief summaries of the various documents referenced in and attached to the complaint, see n.1, supra, plaintiff has plausibly alleged only that it loaned money to Revstone, that Ascalon and Hofmeister have guaranteed repayment in the event Revstone defaults, and that Ascalon has pledged certain shares as security for its guaranty. Therefore, Gallant (which is not mentioned in and did not sign any of the documents) convincingly argues that the complaint fails to state a claim against it for replevin or unjust enrichment, as there is no plausible allegation that plaintiff has a security interest in the property in question, that Revstone or the guarantors have committed any default that would entitle plaintiff to pursue whatever collateral secured the performance of these parties' obligations under the note, that the equipment is sufficiently described in order to give rise to a security interest therein, or that plaintiff has conferred any benefit upon defendant that might give rise to an unjust enrichment claim.

Although dismissal of the complaint would be appropriate, courts prefer to resolve disputes on the merits, and not based on pleading deficiencies. The Court shall therefore grant plaintiff's motion for leave to amend in order to cure the various pleading defects. As noted, plaintiff assets that it can meet its burden under Iqbal by alleging the existence of other documents "[m]istakenly missing from Plaintiff's Complaint . . ." Pl.'s Br. at 1. However, the Court reminds plaintiff of its obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) to ensure that its allegations and claims are made "after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" and are warranted under the law and "have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." If plaintiff elects to amend the complaint, it should not only cite to and attach documents showing that it has a security interest in the equipment in question, but also allege plausibly that defendant (and not some other entity) possesses the equipment and that plaintiff's security interest has been triggered by a default in the underlying obligations. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted. Plaintiff may amend the complaint within ten days of the date of this order. If plaintiff fails to do so, the Court shall grant defendant's motion and dismiss the complaint.