Mealey's (December 18, 2017, 10:54 AM EST) -- DETROIT — A federal district court did not err in dismissing a credit union’s first amended complaint against a former employee and the law firm that represented her or in declining to allow the credit union to amend its complaint to add a claim for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) because the credit union failed to suggest that it could cure any deficiencies in the second amended complaint that were found to be in the first amended complaint, a federal judge in Michigan ruled Dec. 15 in denying the credit union’s motion for reconsideration (Ukrainian Future Credit Union v. William R. Seikaly, et al., No. 17-11483, E.D. Mich., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206176)....