Opinion
21-10895
01-11-2022
Dawn Food Products, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Bruce VanDyke, Defendant.
David R. Grand, Mag. Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND
[ECF NO. 30]
JUDITH E. LEVY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is a trade secrets case. Plaintiff Dawn Food Products, Inc. alleges that its former employee, Defendant Bruce VanDyke, took its proprietary sales information to his next employer, BakeMark USA, LLC. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add two additional Defendants, Steven Hill and BakeMark USA. (See ECF No. 30.) Plaintiffs also seek to add a conspiracy claim against all proposed Defendants and to add claims against BakeMark USA and Hill. See id.
A party seeking to amend a claim, when such an amendment would not be permitted as a matter of course, “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 requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave should be denied where the amendment demonstrates defects “such as 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 (1962)). “To deny a motion to amend, a court must find ‘at least some significant showing of prejudice to the opponent.'” Ziegler v. Aukerman, 512 F.3d 777, 786 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 1986)).
Defendant previously filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend. (ECF No. 32.) However, during the January 10, 2022 status conference in this case, where the Court indicated its intention to grant the motion, Defendant informed the Court that he no longer opposes Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.