Legal Opinion
Vance v. General Motors Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided January 24, 2006No. CIV. 04-70797PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
FEIKENS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Kesha Vance filed her Complaint in pro per, claiming sexual harassment, and now moves to amend her Complaint for two reasons: (1) to clarify the causes of action set forth in her Complaint; and (2) to add her former supervisor, A1 Henry, as an individual Defendant. For the reasons that follow, I GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs motion to amend her Complaint.
I. ANALYSIS
Motions to amend pleadings are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, which provides that leave to file an amended pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,005 State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corporation and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Miller v. American Heavy Lift ShippingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- John Alcodray v. Michigan Department of Corrections and Sherman CampbellDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2026