Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HART v. COUNTY OF HILLSDALE, 16-10253. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160426b40 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT AND FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CORRECT SUMMONS AND EXTEND SUMMONS [DKT. NO. 12] DENISE PAGE HOOD , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on January 25, 2016, naming as defendants the City of Hillsdale, the County of Hillsdale, a law firm, and many individuals. Plaintiff's action stems from allegedly being included on the Michigan Sex Offenders Registry ("SOR") for years after he should have been rem
More

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT AND FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CORRECT SUMMONS AND EXTEND SUMMONS [DKT. NO. 12]

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on January 25, 2016, naming as defendants the City of Hillsdale, the County of Hillsdale, a law firm, and many individuals. Plaintiff's action stems from allegedly being included on the Michigan Sex Offenders Registry ("SOR") for years after he should have been removed and for being wrongfully prosecuted for purported violations of SOR requirements. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 8, 2016 [Dkt. No. 7], and he represents that he has served all but two of the defendants.

Plaintiff recently filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and File Second Amended Complaint, Correct Summons and Extend Summons [Dkt. No. 12]. Plaintiff seeks to: (1) correct the name of one defendant who refused service because her last name is incorrect, (2) modify several paragraphs to comport with that amendment, (3) correct "factual statements in the First Amended Complaint that require amendment," and (4) extend the summons period, which will expire on April 26, 2016.

In reviewing Plaintiff's Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Eastern District of Michigan's Local Rule that requires a party to seek concurrence of the opposing party(ies) before filing a motion. See L.R. 7.1(a).The purpose of Plaintiff's Motion, an amendment that likely would be stipulated to by the other parties, exemplifies the very reason Local Rule 7.1(a) exists — to preclude needless motion practice. Accordingly, due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a), IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Plaintiff's request to correct/amend and file a Second Amended Complaint, except as expressly stated otherwise in the ensuing sentence.

In order that Plaintiff may serve Defendant Christine Wahtola (not Christine Wanda), IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff amend the caption of the First Amended Complaint to substitute "WAHTOLA" for "WANDA" and to substitute "WAHTOLA" for "WANDA" anywhere "WANDA" appears in the First Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file the amended First Amended Complaint on or before April 26, 2016.

With respect to Plaintiff's request to correct and extend the summons period, no concurrence is necessary. In reviewing Plaintiff's Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for correcting the summons and extending the summons period for 30 days. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's request to correct the summons and extend the summons period until May 26, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer