Michigan Marriage Amendment, which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Mich. Const.1963, art 1, §25.3. Consequently, in the attached amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to add a claim thatthe Michigan Marriage Amendment itself violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clausesof the United States Constitution, and they seek to add a third defendant, Bill Bullard Jr., theOakland County Clerk responsible for accepting or rejecting applications for marriage licenses inthe county where Plaintiffs reside.4. Rule 15 provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’swritten consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”A decision as to “when justice so requires” is within the sound discretion of the Court.
Martin v. Assoc. Truck Lines, Inc
., 801 F.2d 246, 248 (6th Cir 1986).5. A motion for leave to amend should be denied only for good reason such as “unduedelay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficienciesby amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowanceof the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”
Ruotolo v City of New York
, 514 F3d 184, 191(2d Cir 2008) (quoting Foman v Davis, 371 US 178, 182 (1962).6. Plaintiffs have a legitimate motive for seeking to add the instant claim and the instantdefendant. Based upon Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Michigan Marriage Amendment isinextricably tied to the claims raised in the original complaint, and Defendant Bullard is theofficial responsible for approving or rejecting the Plaintiffs’ marriage license application. Noprior amendments have been sought or allowed. There is no prejudice to the parties for thereason that this is early in the proceedings, with the parties not yet engaged in discovery. Thereare no statute of limitations issues. This is a viable constitutional claim under 42 USC §1983.
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 33 Filed 09/07/12 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 684