Nouri et al v. TCF Bank et al, No. 2:2010cv12436 - Document 12 (E.D. Mich. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by District Judge Sean F Cox. (JHer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Labeed Nouri and Rouwaida Nouri, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 10-12436 TCF Bank, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox Defendants. _________________________________/ OPINION & ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiffs motion to file an amended complaint. The Court finds that the issues have been adequately presented in the parties briefs and that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. See Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided upon the briefs. For the reasons that follow, the Court shall GRANT the motion, Acting pro se, on June 22, 2010, Plaintiffs Labeed Nouri and Rouwaida Nouri ( Plaintiffs ) filed this action against Defendants TCF Bank, Sandra Altoon ( Altoon ), Rose Bakow ( Bakow ), Rolanda Bussey (Bussey ), Scott Pardon ( Pardon ), Gary Fineman ( Fineman ), Bob Borksman ( Borksman ), Hala Jarbou ( Jarbou ), Krystal Kirma ( Kirma ) and Oakland County Prosecutor. On July 23, 2010, TCF Bank, Bakow, Bob Borgstrom, Bussey, Fineman, and Pardon filed an Answer to the complaint. On or about August 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to file an amended complaint. On August 27, 2010, Defendants TCF Bank, Bakow, Bob Borgstrom, Bussey, Fineman, and Pardon filed a brief opposing Plaintiffs motion to amend. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs motion to amend is untimely and asserts that Plaintiffs have set forth no justification as to why they did not include the new defendants or new counts in their original complaint and assert that Plaintiffs have not pointed to any newly discovered evidence or other reason that led to the need for an amendment. (Docket Entry No. 6 at 2). As Defendants note, leave to amend is be freely given when justice so requires. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). In opposing Plaintiffs motion to amend, Defendants do not assert that amendment would be futile, nor do they identify any prejudice that Defendants would face if the amendment is granted. Moreover, Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and have requested the amendment at a very early stage in the litigation. Indeed, this Court has not yet even held the initial scheduling conference in this action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge Dated: September 29, 2010 I hereby certify that on September 29, 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record by electronic means and upon Labeed Nouri via First Class Mail at the address below: Labeed Nouri #690310 1727 W. Bluewater Highway Ionia, MI 48846 S/J. Hernandez Case Manager
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
