United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court upon the Motion (ECF DKT #24)
of Plaintiff, SRB Servicing, LLC, for Leave of Court to File
an Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). For the
following reasons, the Motion is granted.
SRB Servicing, LLC (“SRB”), is a Florida limited
liability company, successor by assignment from The
Huntington National Bank, successor by merger with Sky Bank,
successor by merger with The Second National Bank of Warren.
SRB originally instituted this action on March 29, 2017,
alleging Breach of a Promissory Note and seeking Foreclosure
of a Mortgage.
12, 2002, Second National Bank extended a commercial loan to
Defendants, Cynthia McIntyre and Stedson McIntyre. The Loan
was secured by a Promissory Note in the principal amount of
$125, 000.00 and by a Mortgage secured by a parcel of real
estate known as 650 Clinton Lane, Highland Heights, Ohio
National Bank merged with Sky Bank on July 2, 2004. Sky Bank
merged with Huntington National Bank on September 21, 2007.
Huntington National Bank transferred the Loan to SRB, by
assignment, on September 25, 2009.
April 6, 2017, Defendant, State of Ohio, Department of
Taxation, filed an Answer to the instant Complaint and
disclaimed any interest in the Property. (ECF DKT #4). On
April 13, 2017, Defendant, Dennis G. Kennedy, Fiscal Officer
of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, filed an Answer. (ECF DKT #10). On
April 25, 2017, Defendant, Third Federal Savings and Loan
Association of Cleveland, filed and Answer and Counterclaim.
(ECF DKT #11). On July 3, 2017, Defendants, Cynthia McIntyre
and Stedson McIntyre, filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF DKT
Motion (ECF DKT #24), SRB seeks leave of Court to amend its
Complaint to pursue only Foreclosure of the Mortgage and not
a money judgment against Defendant, Cynthia McIntyre, on the
have filed no opposition.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
15(a)(2) reads in part, “The court should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” However,
this liberal amendment policy is not without limits. The
Sixth Circuit has observed: “A motion to amend a
complaint should be denied 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.”
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 294 (6th Cir.2010)
(citing Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th
Cir.1995)). The McIntyre Defendants do not charge Plaintiff
with bad faith, undue delay or prejudice; although in their
briefs in support of dismissal, they contend that the
proposed amendments will not cure the defects in SRB's
by itself, “does not justify denial of leave to
amend.” Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 800 (6th
Cir.2002). In addition, when discovery is in the early
stages, any prejudice from entertaining an amended pleading
is minimal. Addressing the contention that an amendment might
necessitate another dispositive motion, the Sixth Circuit
also noted that “another round of motion practice ...
does not rise to the level of prejudice that would warrant
denial of leave to amend.” Morse, 290 F.3d at
determining what constitutes prejudice, the court considers
whether the assertion of the new claim or defense would:
require the opponent to expend significant additional
resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial;
significantly delay the resolution of the dispute; or prevent
the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another
jurisdiction.” Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d
658, 663 (6th Cir.1994). In the instant ...