UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 15-11943 

 HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

WILLIAM C. HARSHA, et al. HON. DAVID R. GRAND 

 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. 26) 

This is a declaratory judgment action. On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff Continental 

Casualty Company filed suit against members of a law firm and others, some 14 

Defendants in all, seeking a determination that it is not liable to pay claims under a 

professional liability insurance policy. (Dkt. 1.) On July 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed its 

first amended Complaint in the above-captioned case. (Dkt. 18.) In its amended 

Complaint, Plaintiff omitted Defendant Angela Thompson, who had been named in 

the original complaint (Dkt. 1), because Defendant Thompson had since voluntarily 

filed for bankruptcy. (Dkt. 18, ¶ 20.) Plaintiff explained that it intended to file “a 

motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking leave to further amend its complaint in 

this action to rename Thompson as a defendant.” (Id.) As a result of the bankruptcy 

filing, the Court entered a notice on July 28, 2015 staying all proceedings against 

Defendant Thompson in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). (Dkt. 23.) 

On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff was granted relief from the automatic stay in 

Defendant Thompson’s bankruptcy case. (Dkt. 26, Ex. A.) Before the Court is 

4:15-cv-11943-TGB-DRG Doc # 28 Filed 09/03/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1049
2 

Plaintiff’s August 13, 2015 motion for leave to file its second amended Complaint 

“for the sole purpose of renaming Angela Thompson” as a Defendant in this case. 

(Dkt. 26, p. 1.) Plaintiff also requests that all Defendants be ordered to respond to 

the second amended Complaint within 14 days of its filing. (Id. at 16.) No Defendant 

has challenged Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its second amended Complaint, 1

and the deadline to do so has passed. The Court will therefore consider this motion 

to be unopposed. 

The decision to grant or deny a motion to amend a pleading is within the sound 

discretion of the Court. See Robinson v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., Inc., 918 F.2d 

579, 591 (6th Cir. 1990). A party may amend a pleading after the opposing party’s 

responsive pleading has been filed only by leave of court or by written consent of the 

adverse party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a) provides that “leave shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Amendments, however, should not be 

permitted in instances of “undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, 

bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous 

amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Applying this standard, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff leave to file a 

second amended Complaint is appropriate. There is no evidence of undue delay, lack 

                                                            

1 According to Plaintiff, Defendants Laura Abbonizio, Ronald Cichon, Tee-Huan Harvey, Edward 

Szachta, Mary Van Hevele, Brian J. Benner, and Brian J. Benner, P.C., d/b/a Benner & Foran have 

concurred in the motion to amend. (Dkt. 26, p. 2.) Moreover, these Defendants have agreed to 

Plaintiff’s request that, if the second amended Complaint is accepted for filing, Defendants shall 

respond within 14 days. (Id.) The remaining Defendants, Stephen Conley, Jonathan Conley, Nathan 

Conley, William C. Harsha, David A. Priehs, Leo Foran, Beverly A. Gorton, and Angelo Yates have 

apparently not responded to Plaintiff’s request for concurrence, nor have they filed any opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion. (Id. at 2-3.) 

4:15-cv-11943-TGB-DRG Doc # 28 Filed 09/03/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1050
3 

of notice, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to 

Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its second amended 

Complaint (Dkt. 26) is GRANTED and the Complaint attached to the motion as 

Exhibit B is accepted for filing. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to respond to 

the second amended Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 3, 2015 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on September 3, 2015, 

using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. 

 By: s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:15-cv-11943-TGB-DRG Doc # 28 Filed 09/03/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1051