-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARREN McLEHAN, No. 09-11547

Plaintiff, District Judge David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,

Defendant. /

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

[Docket #20]. Plaintiffs seek to add Deutsch Bank National Trust as a Defendant, to

supplement existing claims against Defendant Trott & Trott and Chase Home Finance,

and to add claims for equitable relief to set aside Sheriff’s Deed (Count IV), for fraud

against Defendant Wayne County (Counts V and VI), and unnumbered counts of “action

to quiet title” and “slander of title.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) states that after a responsive pleading is filed, a complaint may

be amended only by leave of the court, and that “leave shall be freely given when justice

so requires.” Motions to amend are addressed to the Court’s discretion, and in deciding

whether to allow an amendment, “the court should consider the delay in filing, the 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.” Perkins v. American Electric Power Fuel Supply, Inc., 246 F.3d 593,

605 (6th Cir. 2001). Despite the general rule of liberality with which leave to file

amended complaints is to be granted, the Sixth Circuit has held that when a proposed
1

 The Plaintiffs’ proposed claims to quiet title and for slander of title are premised

on alleged TILA and FTCA violations.

-2-

amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss, the court may properly deny

the amendment. Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6th Cir. 1980); Thiokol Corporation v. Department of

Treasury, 987 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1993).

In this case, the Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint [Docket #21] would be

futile. I have filed Reports and Recommendations (“R&Rs”) to dismiss Defendants

Wayne County, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., and Chase Bank. As explained in

the R&Rs, Wayne County enjoys governmental immunity. Claims under the Truth in

Lending Act (“TILA”) are time barred. There is no private cause of action under the

Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”). I also found that Plaintiffs lack standing to

challenge the foreclosure process, and rejected “unjust enrichment” claims. The

reasoning set forth in my R&Rs apply to the proposed amended complaint.1

If my R&Rs are adopted, the only Defendant remaining would be Trott & Trott.

The Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint does not contain any new or viable claims

against Trott & Trott, and at most merely expands (unnecessarily, for pleading purposes)

on existing claims.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend [Docket #20] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: July 2, 2010
-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on July 2, 2010.

S/G. Wilson 

Judicial Assistant