Creamer v. ESIS Claims Unit et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 12 Motion for Default ; dismissing 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Wesley E. Brown on 1/10/2012. Modified on 1/10/2012. This document was not mailed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was notified via NEF (aa).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARJORIE A. CREAMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ESIS CLAIMS UNIT and ANNETTE
RIGDON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-4110-WEB

Memorandum and Order
Plaintiff Marjorie Creamer filed the above entitled action alleging a product liability
claim. On December 26, 2011 Creamer filed a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 12), and on
January 6, 2012, Creamer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16). For the reasons
stated below, the Motion for Default is denied, and the Motion for Summary Judgment is
dismissed.
Creamer refers to Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 12(a), arguing that the Defendants have not filed a
response and therefore entry of judgment is appropriate. The filing of a motion under Federal
Rule Civil Procedure 12 alters the time to file an answer. If the court denies the motion, the
defendant has 14 days after notice of the court’s order in which to file. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(a)(4)(A). In the case at hand, Defendants timely filed a Motion to Dismiss, which presents
arguments that Creamer failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, defenses under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court has not ruled on the defendant’s motion, and Creamer has not
responded to the Motion. Since Defendants have timely filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is
pending, Creamer’s Motion for Default is denied.
Creamer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is one page, handwritten, and is

absolutely void of any factual basis or legal argument. Local rules specify a motion for summary
judgment “must begin with a section that contains a concise statement of material facts as to
which the movant contends no genuine issue exists. The facts must be numbered and must refer
with particularity to those portions of the record upon which movant relies.” D.Kan.Rule
56.1(a). Creamer has not complied with the local rules. The Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by Creamer does not meet the local rule requirements, neither does it offer uncontroverted
facts or legal argument. The Motion itself presents a questions, instead of argument and
conclusions. Creamer’s Motion for Summary Judgment is dismissed for failure to comply with
local rules.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Creamer’s Motion for Default (Doc. 12) is denied,
and Creamer’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2012.

Wesley E. Brown
Senior United States District Court Judge