UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GALE GLOVER,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 15-10082

Honorable Marianne O. Battani

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANFLINT, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [R. 20]

Plaintiff Gale Glover commenced this action against defendant 

University of Michigan-Flint (“U of M”) alleging employment discrimination 

based on her race in violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [R. 

1]. After U of M answered the complaint, Glover amended her complaint as 

of right, alleging two additional claims: a violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act based a failure to accommodate her food allergies, and a 

violation of the Lanham Act through deceptive advertising. [R. 9, 15]. U of 

M again answered the allegations. [R. 16]. 

Glover now seeks to amend her complaint a second time, to allege 

additional state law claims of breach of contract, fraudulent representation 

and negligent misrepresentation. [R. 20]. U of M opposes this motion. [R. 

2:15-cv-10082-MOB-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 133
2

22]. For the following reasons, Glover’s motion to amend [R. 20] is 

DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permits a plaintiff to amend its 

complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service 

of a responsive pleading or twenty-one days after service of a motion under 

Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After 

that point, a plaintiff “may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s 

written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to 

amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). 

However, a court should deny a motion to amend “if the amendment 

is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or 

prejudice to the opposing party or would be futile.” Crawford v. Roane, 53 

F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962)). “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not 

withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Rose v. Hartford 

Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000). 

II. ANALYSIS

U of M argues that granting Glover leave to add the three state law 

2:15-cv-10082-MOB-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 134
3

claims would be futile because the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against 

U of M on these claims. The Court agrees. U of M is a university chartered 

by and considered an arm of the State of Michigan. The Eleventh 

Amendment protects States from suit in federal court for injunctive, 

monetary or declaratory relief by their own citizens or citizens of another 

state. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Hans 

v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, (1890). Consequently, supplemental state court 

claims may not be brought against a state or its officials in federal court. 

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 117-21 

(1984); Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris, 503 F.3d 514, 520-21 (6th 

Cir. 2007); Thomas v. Noder-Love, No. 13-2495, 2015 WL 4385284, at *5 

(6th Cir. July 17, 2015).

Because U of M is immune from suit on the proposed state law 

claims, Glover’s motion to amend her complaint to add these claims [R. 20]

is DENIED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a 

period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 

2:15-cv-10082-MOB-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 135
4

within which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 

28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

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 July 23, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-10082-MOB-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 136