TAYLOR v. LISS

Full title: ERIC TAYLOR and ANJANETTE TAYLOR, Plaintiffs, v. TROOPER LISS, TROOPER…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2006

Case No. 05-71728 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 05-71728.

February 7, 2006

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND

PATRICK DUGGAN, District Judge

This action was originally filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court on March 14, 2005 naming the above listed Defendants. It was removed to this Court on May 2, 2005.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint to add an additional defendant — DEA Special Agent Debra Lynch.

Defendants Boyle and Faes object to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint. The basis for these Defendants' objections is that Plaintiffs knew of the identity of Debra Lynch "on or before October 25, 2005," and therefore should not have waited until January 25, 2006 to file this motion. Furthermore, these Defendants contend that granting this motion to amend will cause the presently scheduled dates to be changed in order to "give her an opportunity to answer, conduct discovery, and file a motion for summary judgment."

While these Defendants believe that the present dates will have to be changed, the Court is not presently convinced that will be necessary.¹

1 If after Defendant Lynch has been served, she requests additional time for discovery and/or to file a motion for summary judgment, the Court will certainly give consideration to that request. However, the granting of this motion will not necessarily entitle Plaintiffs to conduct discovery beyond the present discovery cut-off date of January 31, 2006.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: "[A] party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." The Rule was intended to "reinforce the principle that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings." Teft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982). To deny a motion to amend, the district court must find "at least some significant showing of prejudice to the opponent." Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 1986). Defendants Boyle and Faes have not persuaded this Court that they will be prejudiced if Debra Lynch is added as a party defendant.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the amended complaint within 7 days of the date of this Order and shall effect service of process upon Debra Lynch as soon as possible.