Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SKIDMORE v. ACCESS GROUP INC, 14-13031. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20150429e48 Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT ACCESS GROUP, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS LINDA V. PARKER , District Judge . On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this pro se lawsuit against Access Group, Inc. ("Access") and several other defendants. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by Access on February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 11, 2015. On March 25, 2015, Access filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or, in the al
More

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT ACCESS GROUP, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this pro se lawsuit against Access Group, Inc. ("Access") and several other defendants. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by Access on February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 11, 2015. On March 25, 2015, Access filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to Access' motion by filing a motion to strike which is presently pending before the Court. (ECF No. 32.)

In his motion, Plaintiff contends that Access' motion should be stricken because it fails to comply with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(d)(3)(A). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Access' brief is thirty pages, thereby exceeding the rule's 25-page limit. Plaintiff also claims "that the length of [Access'] brief is further compounded by the lack of clarity involved in the brief." (ECF No. 32 at Pg ID 314.) As Plaintiff explains, he cannot figure out which standard— Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 56, or both— Access is applying to which arguments.

Local Rule 7.1 provides that, unless the Court permits otherwise, each motion must be accompanied by a single brief which may be separate from or contained within the motion. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1)(A). Rule 7.1 further provides that "[t]he text of a brief . . . including footnotes and signatures, may not exceed 25 pages." Id. 7.1(d)(2) (emphasis added). The text of Access' brief does not exceed twenty-five pages. It is twenty-three pages. (See ECF No. 30.) The pages containing the table of contents, table of authorities, questions presented, and controlling or most appropriate authority, although part of the brief, are not part of the text of the brief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Access Group, Inc.'s Motion is DENIED.

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