UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Mark Wasvary, individually and as 

the representative of a class of 

similarly-situated persons,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-10750

WB Holdings, LLC, et al., Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER REGARDING 

PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS

AND IMPROPER BLANKET REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed this putative class action, asserting claims against

Defendants under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

On July 12, 2016, Defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss,” (Docket Entry No. 51),

wherein they ask this Court to dismiss this action. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the

motion on August 9, 2016. (Docket Entry No. 51). The motion has now been fully briefed by

the parties and is scheduled to be heard by this Court on November 17, 2016.

In preparing for the hearing, however, this Court noticed that in the concluding paragraph

of Plaintiff’s response brief, Plaintiff states “should the Court find Plaintiff’s complaint deficient

in any way, Plaintiff requests leave to amend to correct any deficiencies.” (Id. at Pg ID 713).

At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiff may amend his complaint “only with the opposing

party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The party requesting leave to amend must ‘act with due

1

2:15-cv-10750-SFC-APP Doc # 60 Filed 11/07/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 907
diligence if it wants to take advantage of the Rule’s liberality.’” D.E. & J Limited P’ship v.

Conway, 284 F. Supp.2d 719, 751 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (quoting Parry v. Mohawk Motors of

Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299,306 (6th Cir. 2000)). Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 15.1

further requires that a party who moves to amend a pleading must attach the proposed amend

pleading to the motion.

Here, Plaintiff has not moved to file an amended complaint, nor has Plaintiff presented

the Court with any proposed amended complaint. Rather, in a single line in the closing

paragraph of its brief in opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff asks that the

Court grant it leave to amend “should the Court find Plaintiff’s complaint deficient in any way.” 

The Sixth Circuit’s “disfavor of a such a bare request in lieu of a properly filed motion

for leave to amend was made clear in Begala v. PNC Bank, Ohio, N.A., 214 F.3d 776, 784 (6th

Cir. 2000).” Alliance for Children, Inc. v. City of Detroit Public Schools, 475 F. Supp.2d 655,

669 (E.D. Mich. 2007). What Plaintiff has stated, “almost as an aside,” to this Court in his brief

in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is not the proper procedure for requesting leave to amend. 

Begala, 214 F.3d at 784; see also Louisiana Sch. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 622

F.3d 471, 486 (6th Cir. 2010). “As the Begala decision stated in affirming a district court’s

dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice:

Had plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint prior to th[e] Court’s consideration

of the motions to dismiss . . . the Court would have considered the motions to dismiss in

light of the proposed amendments to the complaint ... Absent such a motion, however,

Defendant was entitled to a review of the complaint as filed . . . Plaintiffs were not

entitled to an advisory opinion from the Court informing them of the deficiencies of the

complaint and then an opportunity to cure those deficiencies.

Louisiana Sch. Emp. Ret. Sys., 622 F.3d at 486 (quoting Begala, 214 F.3d at 784) (emphasis in

original).

2

2:15-cv-10750-SFC-APP Doc # 60 Filed 11/07/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 908
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended

complaint, Plaintiff must file a formal motion seeking leave to do no later than 9:00 a.m. on

November 14, 2016. Any such motion must be accompanied by the proposed amended

complaint. 

If Plaintiff does not file such a motion, the Court shall proceed to hear and determine the

pending Motion to Dismiss as scheduled, reviewing the Complaint as filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 7, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

November 7, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-10750-SFC-APP Doc # 60 Filed 11/07/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 909