Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Masjid Malcom Shabazz House of Worship, Inc. v. City of Inkster, 19-11823. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20191118e42 Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT [14] JUDITH E. LEVY , District Judge . Plaintiff Masjid Malcom Shabazz House of Worship, Inc. is suing Defendants—Inkster Building Official Mark Minch and the City of Inkster, Michigan—for unlawfully designating Plaintiff's properties for demolition in violation of Plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1, PageID.12-17.) Plaintiff filed this complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court on Febru
More

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT [14]

Plaintiff Masjid Malcom Shabazz House of Worship, Inc. is suing Defendants—Inkster Building Official Mark Minch and the City of Inkster, Michigan—for unlawfully designating Plaintiff's properties for demolition in violation of Plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1, PageID.12-17.) Plaintiff filed this complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court on February 20, 2019. (ECF No. 9-2, PageID.185) Defendants removed the case to this Court on June 19, 2020. (ECF No. 9-8, PageID.231.)

On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add a civil conspiracy charge "based on the new information obtained since the filing of the original complaint." (ECF No. 14, PageID.352.) Because Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint more than 21 days after serving it, Plaintiff needs the consent of either the Court or the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants gave their consent to amend the complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff needs the consent of the Court to amend. Id.

When a party seeks to amend its complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court "should freely give leave when justice so requires." Absent "any apparent or declared reason" to deny leave, "such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive[,]" "this mandate is to be heeded." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In the two weeks since Plaintiff filed this motion seeking leave to amend, Defendant has not filed an objection. Because there is no "apparent or declared reason" to deny leave, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer