UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JODI SELOU, 

 

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 15-10927 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v. 

 

INTEGRITY SOLUTION SERVICES 

INC., INTEGRITY ACQUISITION, LLC, 

CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., and 

RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

 

Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

AMEND (ECF NO. 19) AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(ECF NO. 14.)

 On February 6, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in state court against 

Defendant Integrity Solutions Services, Inc. (“Integrity”), alleging violations of 

state and federal law as a result of Integrity’s conduct in connection with the 

collection of a debt from Plaintiff. Integrity removed Plaintiff’s Complaint to 

federal court on March 27, 2015, on the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint, adding as Integrity 

Acquisition, LLC (“IA”), Central Credit Services, Inc. (“CCS”) and Radius Global 

Solutions, LLC (“Radius”) as defendants. (ECF No. 8.) On May 27, 2015, IA, 

CCS, and Radius filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

4:15-cv-10927-LVP-SDD Doc # 21 Filed 10/19/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 244
2 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14.) The motion 

has been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) On August 12, 2015, however, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint in order to name two 

additional defendants: Navient Corporation and LiveVox, Inc. (ECF No. 19.) The 

currently named defendants filed a response to the motion, indicating that they do 

not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint, although they “deny all 

liability and claims of wrongdoing alleged in the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint and aver that they have meritorious defenses to all claims.” (ECF No. 

20 at Pg ID 241.) 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “the court should freely 

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” The Court may deny leave to 

amend, however, for such reasons as “where there is undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue 

of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the amendment[.]” Benzon v. 

Morgan Stanley Distribs., Inc., 420 F.3d 598, 613 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). “It is settled that the grant of leave to amend 

the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.” 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). 

4:15-cv-10927-LVP-SDD Doc # 21 Filed 10/19/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 245
3 

 As indicated, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend her 

complaint and-- perhaps therefore-- do not set forth any reason why leave should 

not be granted. This Court finds no reason. The Court therefore is GRANTING

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the amended pleading attached to her motion. 

Plaintiff shall file her Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this 

decision. 

 Turning to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, because the motion is directed at 

a complaint that will soon be superseded by Plaintiff’s amended pleading, the 

Court is DENYING the motion AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 19, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 19, 2015, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-10927-LVP-SDD Doc # 21 Filed 10/19/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 246