IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DONALD DOWD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIRECTV, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG

District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO “PLAINTIFFS’ CONDITIONAL MOTION TO

SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD COURT GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT”

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

Colin D. Dougherty

10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200, P.O. Box 3001

Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001

Telephone: (610) 397-6500

Facsimile: (610) 397-0450

cdougherty@foxrothschild.com

Pennsylvania State Bar I.D. No. 88363

Eric E. Reed

2000 Market Street, 20th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222

(215) 299-2741

ereed@foxrothschild.com

Attorneys for Defendant DirectSat USA, LLC

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4202
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION................................................... 1

ARGUMENT....................................................... 1

CONCLUSION..................................................... 4

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 4203
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Evans v. Pearson Enterprises, Inc.,

434 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2006)...................................... 2, 3

Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. Newton Lumber & Mfg. Co.,

388 F.2d 66 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 905

(1968) .............................................................. 2

Judkins v. HSBS Mortgage Servs.,

No. 13-CV-12357, 2014 WL 1260136 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2014)

(Rosen, J., adopting report and recommendation of Grand,

M.J.) aff'd sub nom. Judkins v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc.,

586 F. App'x 216 (6th Cir. 2014).................................. 2, 3

Lilly v. United States Lines Co.,

42 F.Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)....................................... 2

Nation v. United States Government,

512 F. Supp. 121 (S.D. Ohio 1981).................................... 2

Schwab v. Nathan,

8 F.R.D. 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1948)......................................... 2

V.R. Entm't v. City of Ann Arbor,

No. 12-CV-10203, 2012 WL 3230418 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2012)

(Borman, J.) ..................................................... 2, 3

The Way Int'l v. Executive Risk Indem., Inc.,

No. 07-294, 2008 WL 906006 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2008) ................. 2

Other Authorities

3 Moore's Federal Practice, P 15.12..................................... 2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b) ...................................................... 3

Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1) ................................................... 1

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) .................................................. 1, 3

Local Rule 15.1 ..................................................... 2, 3

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 4204
1

Defendant DirectSat USA, LLC (“DirectSat”), by and through its

undersigned counsel, hereby submits this response in opposition to

Plaintiffs’ “Conditional Motion to Seek Leave to Amend Should Court Grant

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.”

INTRODUCTION

In yet another attempt to avoid the inevitable, Plaintiffs submit a

Conditional Motion to Seek Leave to Amend Should Court Grant Defendants’

Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion”).

If the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request, it would mark at least their

fourth attempt to properly bring the same wage-and-hour claims by way of

various different litigations stemming back to 2010. Setting the futility

of any purported amendments aside, Plaintiffs’ provisional and conditional

request to bring such amendments lacks conformity with Sixth Circuit

precedent and related authority from other courts in this District. As

such, the pending Motion must be denied.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs are correct: “[M]erely including a request for leave to

amend within a responsive brief may not be sufficient to preserve the

request.” D.E. 64 at 1. But Plaintiffs’ Conditional Motion to Seek Leave

to Amend Should Court Grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

Second Amended Complaint is fatally flawed. Without a proposed “Third”

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ provisional request to cure their obvious

pleading deficiencies falls flat.

“Although the Civil Rules do not expressly deal with the manner of

presentation of amendments to pleadings, there is substantial authority

for the proposition that Civil Rules 7(b)(1) and 15(a) impliedly require

submission of the proposed amended pleading with the motion to amend.”

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 4205
2

Nation v. United States Government, 512 F. Supp. 121, 124 (S.D. Ohio 1981)

(citing Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. Newton Lumber & Mfg. Co., 388 F.2d 66 (10th

Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 905 (1968); Schwab v. Nathan, 8 F.R.D.

227 (S.D.N.Y. 1948); Lilly v. United States Lines Co., 42 F.Supp. 214

(S.D.N.Y. 1941); 3 Moore's Federal Practice, P 15.12.).

In fact, Local Rule 15.1 states that, “A party who moves to amend a

pleading shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.” E.D.

Mich. LR 15.1 (emphasis added). In keeping with this rule, other courts

in this District routinely deny motions for leave to amend – and the Sixth

Circuit has affirmed such denials – where the movant fails to include an

accompanying proposed amended pleading. See, e.g., Evans v. Pearson

Enterprises, Inc., 434 F.3d 839, 853 (6th Cir. 2006); Judkins v. HSBS

Mortgage Servs., No. 13-CV-12357, 2014 WL 1260136, at **9-10 (E.D. Mich.

Mar. 26, 2014) (Rosen, J., adopting report and recommendation of Grand,

M.J.) aff'd sub nom. Judkins v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc., 586 F. App'x

216 (6th Cir. 2014); V.R. Entm't v. City of Ann Arbor, No. 12-CV-10203,

2012 WL 3230418, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2012) (Borman, J.); The Way

Int'l v. Executive Risk Indem., Inc., No. 07-294, 2008 WL 906006, at *4

(S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2008); Nation, 512 F.Supp. at 124.

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs attempt to sidestep their pleading

requirements by submitting their Motion without a proposed Third Amended

Complaint or, for that matter, any hint as to what modifications would be

made therein. See generally D.E. 64. Yet given their Motion’s citation

to Evans, Plaintiffs are surely aware of these mandatory prerequisites to

their request. See D.E. 64 at 1. In Evans, the Sixth Circuit held that

the “district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Evans’ first

request for leave to amend her complaint because she failed to state the

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 4206
3

grounds for relief with particularity . . .” Evans, 434 F.3d at 853. In

so affirming, the Evans court noted that “[r]equesting leave to amend

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b), which requires

that a motion ‘shall state with particularity the grounds therefor.’”

Evans, 434 F.3d at 853 (citation omitted). And, in applying this

standard, the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff did not state the

basis for her motion for leave with adequate particularity because she

failed to provide sufficient “grounds or a proposed amended complaint to

support her request.” Id.

The Motion at bar proves no different: Plaintiffs include neither a

proposed “Third” Amended Complaint nor any reference to any prospective

amendments that will cure the deficiencies in the Second Amended

Complaint. See also Judkins, 2014 WL 1260136, at **9-10 (noting

plaintiffs’ violation of E.D. Mich. LR 15.1 and denying their request for

leave to amend for failure to state with particularity the grounds upon

which it was made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)) and V.R. Entm't, 2012 WL

3230418, at *3 (denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended

complaint for failure to state any additional facts they intended to

allege as part of their amended complaint as well as their failure to

attach a proposed amended complaint). In fact, in their response to

DirectSat’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ argue they have properly pled

all of their claims. As such, this Motion is a “catch all,” if the Court

disagrees with them.

Given this, denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion and dismissal of this

action is appropriate.

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 4207
4

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants request that this Honorable

Court deny Plaintiffs’ Conditional Motion to Seek Leave to Amend Should

Court Grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

Complaint, with prejudice.

DATED: July 6, 2015 Respectfully submitted:

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

/s/ Colin D. Dougherty

COLIN D. DOUGHERTY

Attorney for Defendant

DirectSat USA, LLC

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 4208
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Colin D. Dougherty, hereby certify that, on this date, I caused

the foregoing document to be filed electronically with this Court, where

it is available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s ECF system,

and that such electronic filing automatically generates a Notice of

Electronic Filing constituting service of the filed document, upon the

following:

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP DUANE MORRIS LLP

George A. Hanson Michael Tiliakos

460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Natalie F. Hrubos

Kansas City, MO 64112 1540 Broadway

hanson@stuevesiegel.com New York, NY 10036-4086

mtiliakos@duanemorris.com

Ryan D. O’Dell nfhrubos@duanemorris.com

550 West C. Street, Suite 1750

San Diego, CA 92101 MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK, &

odell@stuevesiegel.com STONE PLC

Brian Schwartz

LAW FIRM OF ANDREW BILLER M. Misbah Shahid

Andrew Biller 150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500

420 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Detroit, MI 48226

Kansas City, MO 64112 schwartz@millercanfield.com

Brendan@donelonpc.com shahid@millercanfield.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants DIRECTV

and Multiband Corporation

By: /s/ Colin D. Dougherty

Colin D. Dougherty

Dated: July 6, 2015

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 69 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 4209