DR NDIDI OKEKE V DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DR. NDIDI OKEKE,
UNPUBLISHED
January 11, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 294573
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-121658-CD
DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER and WAYNE
STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and MURRAY and SERVITTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order denying her motion to amend her
complaint. We affirm.
The decision to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Weymers v Khera, 454 Mich 639, 654; 563 NW2d 647 (1997). The motion need not
be granted where amendment would be futile. Lane v Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc, 231
Mich App 689, 697; 588 NW2d 715 (1998). “An amendment is futile if it merely restates the
allegations already made or adds allegations that still fail to state a claim.” Id. “[A] motion to
amend should ordinarily be denied only for particularized reasons, including undue delay, bad
faith or a dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility.” PT Today, Inc v Comm’r of
Financial & Ins Serv, 270 Mich App 110, 143; 715 NW2d 398 (2006). A trial court may
conclude that the opposing party will be prejudiced when the moving party’s new claim or
theory of recovery is premised on the same set of facts after discovery has closed and just before
trial. Franchino v Franchino, 263 Mich App 172, 192; 687 NW2d 620 (2004).
Plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend
where the court rules require the opportunity to amend, the request would not result in undue
delay, and the amendment was not futile. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to amend. Weymers, 454 Mich at 654.
After the close of discovery, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary
disposition. Nearly three weeks after the case had been closed, plaintiff requested the
opportunity to amend. Although MCR 2.116(I)(5) permits amendment, the trial court need not
allow amendment where the evidence indicates that it is not justified. In light of the evidence
-1-
presented during the summary disposition motion, the trial court did not err in denying
amendment where the evidence failed to justify the filing. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion in holding that amendment would result in undue delay and
was futile. Plaintiff was aware of the facts and evidence in support of the pregnancy and
disability claims when the underlying discrimination claims were at issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-2-
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.
