UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACEY L. KEVELIGHAN, KEVIN W.

KEVELIGHAN, JAMIE LEIGH

COMPTON, JAMIE LYNN COMPTON,

and KEVIN KLEINHANS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TROTT & TROTT, P.C.; ORLANS

ASSOCIATES, P.C.; AMERICA’S

SERVICING COMPANY; DEUTSCHE

BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

WEBSTER BANK, N.A.; FANNIE MAE;

FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, aka

FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A., aka

METLIFE HOME LOANS, aka FIRST

HORIZON ASSET SECURITIES, INC.;

BANK OF NEW YORK; U.S. BANK

HOME MORTGAGE; WELLS FARGO

HOME MORTGAGE, and HSBC

MORTGAGE CORP.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-12543

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on_May 26, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On June 29, 2009, Tracey L. Kevelighan, Kevin W. Kevelighan, Jamie Lynn

2:09-cv-12543-PJD-VMM Doc # 118 Filed 05/26/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1922
1

 The Court granted Trott & Trott, P.C.’s motion in an Opinion and Order dated January

18, 2011. The remaining motions are pending at this time.

2

Compton, Jamie Leigh Compton, and Kevin Kleinhans filed this purported class-action

lawsuit, alleging numerous violations of state and federal law in connection with the

administration and enforcement of mortgage agreements. On October 27, 2009, Plaintiffs

filed an Amended Complaint spanning 145 pages, containing 634 numbered paragraphs,

and naming 40 purported plaintiff and defendant sub-classes. 

Several defendants filed motions to dismiss, and this Court issued an Opinion and

Order on July 7, 2010 granting these motions in part and denying them in part. Due to the

length, complexity, and disorganization of the Amended Complaint, the Court sent a letter

to all counsel of record on August 18, 2010, identifying a list of each plaintiff’s remaining

claims against each defendant. The Court invited counsel to object to the proposed list of

claims, and no objections were received. Accordingly, the Court indicated its intent to

proceed with the understanding that only the claims in that list were pending. Several

Defendants have since filed motions for judgment on the pleadings or for summary

judgment, including: Trott & Trott, P.C., Orlans Associates, P.C., Bank of New York

Mellon, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Federal National Mortgage Association,

U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, America’s Servicing Company, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,

and First Horizon Home Loans.1

On February 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their Complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Several Defendants filed responses in opposition to

the motion, and the Court heard oral argument on May 12, 2011. For the reasons stated

2:09-cv-12543-PJD-VMM Doc # 118 Filed 05/26/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1923
3

below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) provides that a party may amend its

pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service of a motion under

Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Otherwise, a party may amend only with the opposing party’s

written consent or the court’s leave, but “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts have discretion in granting leave to amend. 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962). Absent any apparent or

declared reason, such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies,

undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment, leave to amend should

be freely given. Id.

Plaintiffs seek leave of the Court to file five separate amended complaints, arguing

that this would “further clarify the causes of action and claims.” Pls.’ Mot. Amend ¶ 8. 

Additional clarity is unnecessary, as the Court’s August 18, 2010 letter provided a succinct

list of the claims raised by each Plaintiff against each Defendant. See Dkt. #62. The Court

invited the parties to raise objections to that list and received none. Each Defendant has

clear notice of the claims against which it must defend, and several Defendants have

accordingly filed dispositive motions.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants would not be prejudiced by granting leave to amend.

The Court disagrees. Despite their filing of an unwieldy Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs

waited well over a year before seeking leave to amend. In the meantime, Defendants have

filed motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The Court also notes

that discovery in this case has closed. If a Second Amended Complaint raised issues

2:09-cv-12543-PJD-VMM Doc # 118 Filed 05/26/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1924
4

requiring additional discovery, it would require Defendants to expend more resources and

further delay resolution of this litigation. Given Plaintiffs’ previous failure to cure the

deficiencies of their Amended Complaint, such an outcome would be manifestly unjust. 

At the hearing, Plaintiffs indicated their intent to add another defendant, Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems. “When amendment is sought at a late stage in the

litigation, there is an increased burden to show justification for failing to move earlier.” 

Wade v. Knoxville Utils. Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 459 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs have offered no

explanation for their delay in adding this new defendant, and the Court concludes that

leave to amend must be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Kevin W. Kevelighan, Esq.

Peter W. Macuga, II, Esq.

Timothy B. Myers, Esq.

Matthew J. Boettcher, Esq.

Dana M. Hathaway, Esq.

Lawrence C. Mann, Esq.

Mark P. Schneebeck, Esq.

2:09-cv-12543-PJD-VMM Doc # 118 Filed 05/26/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1925