MOHLMAN v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 15-11085. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20150604b39
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [R. 13] ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD , Magistrate Judge . On March 31, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss [R. 3], to which Plaintiff Brent Mohlman responded [R. 10]. The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen referred the motion to dismiss to this Court for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). [R. 11]. On May 29, 2015, the Court entered an order striking Mohlman's response for failing to comply with the Loc
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [R. 13] ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD , Magistrate Judge . On March 31, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss [R. 3], to which Plaintiff Brent Mohlman responded [R. 10]. The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen referred the motion to dismiss to this Court for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). [R. 11]. On May 29, 2015, the Court entered an order striking Mohlman's response for failing to comply with the Loca..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [R. 13]
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, Magistrate Judge.
On March 31, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss [R. 3], to which Plaintiff Brent Mohlman responded [R. 10]. The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen referred the motion to dismiss to this Court for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [R. 11].
On May 29, 2015, the Court entered an order striking Mohlman's response for failing to comply with the Local Rules of this District:
Mohlman's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss fails to comply with the . . . requirements [of E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2) and (a)(3)]. The font size is noticeably too small; there are no page numbers; and it appears that it is less than double-spaced.
The Comment to E.D. Mich. LR 5.1 warns that "[a]ttempts to circumvent the LR in any way may be considered an abusive practice which may result in papers being stricken as well as sanctions being imposed under LR 11.1." Although Mohlman was not necessarily attempting to circumvent the local rules, the multiple deficiencies in his response show that, at a minimum, he neglected to review the rules before filing his pleading.
[R. 12, PgID 384]. Mohlman filed a second response on June 2, 2015. [R. 13]. This response contains page numbers and is appropriately spaced, but the text is still smaller than the requisite size 14 font. Furthermore, the brief is 30 pages long, in violation of E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(3)(A).
The Court STRIKES Mohlman's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss [R. 13] and orders that he refile a response that complies with the Local Rules by June 5, 2015. Counsel is warned that any continued failure to comply with the Court's local rules will result in an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to LR 11.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
Source: Leagle
