Masjid Malcom Shabazz House of Worship, Inc. v. Inkster, City of et al, No. 5:2019cv11823 - Document 19 (E.D. Mich. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Masjid Malcom Shabazz House of Worship, Inc. v. Inkster, City of et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Masjid Malcom Shabazz House of Worship, Inc., Case No. 19-11823 Plaintiff, v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge City of Inkster and Mark Minch, Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub Defendants. ________________________________/ 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.) Dockets.Justia.com 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. Dated: November 18, 2019 Ann Arbor, Michigan s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY 2 United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 18, 2019. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager 3
]]>
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.
