STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND. Case No. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Hon. v

Similar documents
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2:10-cv BAF-RSW Doc # 186 Filed 09/06/13 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 7298

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 3:12-cv Document 99 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:04-cv RJH Document 32-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM BUSINESS DISPUTE

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 1:13-cv FDS Document 87 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No

Case 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:12-cv SVW-PLA Document 21 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:204

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 22, 2014 Session

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 1:08-cv GBL-TCB Document 21 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 652

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 23, 2014 Session

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOW COME Defendants Michael P. Daniel, M.D. and Daniel Urological Center, Inc.,

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/31/ :16 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2016

Simply the Best Movers, LLC v. Marrins Moving Sys., Ltd NCBC 28. SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 15 CVS 7065

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Donna Lloyd s ( Plaintiff ) second request

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv SCJ. versus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 1:10-cv NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 38 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:15-cv NVW Document 150 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 5

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 3:11-cv JPG-PMF Document 164 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #2150

Case 3:15-cv M Document 67 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1072 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:13-cv KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF OAKLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Titan Atlas Mfg., Inc. v Meier 2013 NY Slip Op 31486(U) July 8, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Eileen A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN POSITION By vote of the Representative Assembly on April 16, 2005

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IED LLC UNIFIED RECOVERY GROUP LLC AND J S LAWRENCE GREEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan additionally asserted the following as damages: Blueprints: $20,000 Land Purchase: $20,000 Grading of Land: $20,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

2:12-cv VAR-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 11/06/12 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 227 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

PLAINITFF MALC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

mg Doc 4031 Filed 06/19/13 Entered 06/19/13 16:26:17 Main Document Pg 1 of 8. x : : : : : : : x. Debtors.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:14-cv R-RZ Document 52 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:611

Case 3:18-cv FLW-TJB Document 69 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID: April 18, 2019

2:12-cv DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 1:08-cv JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:09-cv JCH-DJS Document 53 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Emil LLC v Jacobson 2018 NY Slip Op 32529(U) October 3, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: Barry Ostrager Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-CV-12634

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Defendant-Appellee. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD,

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Nelson v Patterson 2010 NY Slip Op 31799(U) July 12, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York

Transcription:

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND Case No. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Hon. v, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Attorneys for Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COUNTERCLAIMS PURSUANT TO M.C.R. 2.118(A)(2) Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs request this Honorable court to grant leave to amend the counterclaims pursuant to MCR 2.118(A)(2) for including a claim for indemnification and for the reasons outlined in the attached brief in support.

Dated Submitted by,, Attorney for the Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs.

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND Case No. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Hon. v Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Attorneys for Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COUNTERCLAIMS PURSUANT TO M.C.R. 2.118(A)(2)

Introduction Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs have filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants on claims for account stated, breach of promissory note, declaratory relief/ anticipatory repudiation, declaratory relief -breach of redemption agreement, fraud in the inducement/misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty/implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Appointment of receiver under MCLA 600.2926. For the reasons stated below, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court to grant leave to amend the counterclaims pursuant to MCR 2.118(A)(2) to include a claim for indemnification and to release Counter-Plaintiff with respect to all notes that he has personally guaranteed and which are undelivered by the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants. Statement of Facts Until, Counter-Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff were each fifty percent (50%) owners of On that date they closed a transaction pursuant to a Redemption Agreement (Exhibit ), whereby redeemed Interest for (a) cash paid at Closing; (b) assignment of ownership of a subsidiary LLC, which owned certain real estate rights; and (c) delivery of a Promissory Note. At the time of the Closing on the Redemption Agreement, was required, according to the Redemption Agreement (Section 1.6) (Exhibit ), to deliver releases of all personal guaranties previously given by with respect to

obligations. The obligations include various investor notes personally guaranteed by These are funds loaned by private, wealthy individuals to to use as operating capital. The investor notes are unsecured but were personally guaranteed by both owners of. At the Closing, delivered only some of the releases of the personal guarantees. For various business reasons, the Redemption Agreement was closed despite the non-delivery of all releases of personal guaranty. The Redemption Agreement includes the provision that in the event the releases are not delivered, will indemnify for any claims asserted with respect to the Personal Guaranty, See Redemption Agreement, (Sections 1.6 and 6.3) (Exhibit.. ). However, have not taken efforts so far to procure the undelivered releases or otherwise to indemnify against claims asserted with respect to Personal Guaranty. Law and Argument When it comes to amending a pleading, Michigan courts generally take a liberal view. MCR 2.118(A) (2). According to MCR 2.118(A) (2), a pleading may be amended by the leave of the court and the courts are to grant the leave freely when justice so require. Seeking amendment is a right of a litigant than an act of grace by the court in the absence of any apparent or declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, futility of amendment, etc. Ben P. Fyke & Sons, Inc. v. Gunter Co., 390 Mich. 649,659 (Mich. 1973); Foman v Davis, 371 U.S. 178,182(1962). Counter-Plaintiff seeks to amend the counterclaims in order to include a claim for indemnification, and release with

respect to all the notes that he has personally guaranteed and which are undelivered. So far the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants have not taken efforts to procure the undelivered releases or otherwise to indemnify against claims asserted with respect to Personal Guaranty. Hence, it has become imperative for the Counter-Plaintiff to amend the counterclaim. The Counter-Plaintiff seeks to file the amended counterclaim in good faith. The amendment will not cause undue delay nor will it unduly prejudice the Plaintiffs/ Counter Defendants or amount to futility of amendments. Courts have observed that, rather than justice as a prerequisite, the standard is whether injustice will prevail if amendment is denied in the particular circumstance. Ben P. Fyke & Sons, Inc., 390 Mich. 649,658 (Mich. 1973). If the instant motion to amend the counterclaim is denied, it will amount to an injustice to the Counter-Plaintiffs. The claim for indemnification is a pertinent claim to the Counter-Plaintiff Thurber s case. In granting a motion to amend, the courts are not required to look into the substantive merits of the claim or defense, provided it is legally insufficient on the face so as to become futile. Id. at 661. Further it is observed that a Plaintiff should be allowed to test his claim on merit if the underlying facts or circumstance relied by the plaintiff is a proper subject of relief. Foman, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Counter- Plaintiff s claim is a valid one as the Counter-Plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prove his claim. The Redemption Agreement includes the provision that in the event the releases are not delivered, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants will indemnify Counter-Plaintiff for any claims asserted with respect to the Personal Guaranty. (Redemption Agreement, Sec. 1.6 and 6.3, Exhibit.). Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants have failed to indemnify the

Counter-Plaintiff as per the Redemption Agreement. Therefore, amending the counterclaims has become a prerequisite for the Counter-Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, for the reasons discussed above, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs requests this Honorable Court to grant leave to amend the counterclaim. Respectfully submitted, DATED: