Eastown, Incorporated et al v. Deeper Life Christian Church, Incorporated et al
ORDER denying 131 , 132 Motion Seeking Relief from Order. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BASIL T. SIMON,
Case No. 04-72977
DEEPER LIFE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, INC.,
DEEPER LIFE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES, and
BISHOP A.B. JEFFERSON,
ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion Seeking Relief from Order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), initially filed on August 16, 2016 (Dkt. #128), withdrawn
(Dkt. #130), then re-filed on January 17th and 18th of 2017 (Dkts. ##131, 132). The
motion seeks relief from the court’s order of March 1, 2016, granting Basil T. Simon’s
motion to substitute himself as Plaintiff in place of Eastown Inc., and the Dietrich Trust.
(Dkt. #101). Though apparently filed by Interested Party Edgar Dietrich, the instant
motion purports to seek relief on behalf of nominal Movants Jason Dietrich and Eric
Dietrich, beneficiaries of terminated Plaintiff, The Dietrich Trust. The instant motion is
signed by Edgar Dietrich, though the previous ones were signed by Eric Dietrich.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(c) states that a “court may relieve a party
or its legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for . . . any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(c). Movants argue that, as they were
never named parties in this proceeding, they were never served with notice of the
motion to substitute party and were therefore never able to respond. However, it is clear
that Edgar Dietrich, the creator of the Dietrich Trust, was apprised of this motion as he
filed two responsive briefings. (Dkts. ##72, 110). The instant motion does not advance
any substantive arguments regarding the substitution of the Dietrich Trust beyond those
already discussed in Edgar Dietrich’s response briefs. Moreover, Movants do not
identify any rule requiring service on a plaintiff trust’s beneficiaries nor any rule requiring
that beneficiaries be provided an opportunity to respond to a motion to substitute the
trust as a party. As such, they have not provided any “reason that justifies relief” from
the court’s order granting substitution. Finally, Movants are not named parties, and they
do not claim to be the “legal representative[s]” of the trust or any other named party.
Therefore, the court may not relieve them from its order under the plain language of
Federal Rule 60, which applies to “a party or its legal representative.” Fed. R. Civ. P 60.
For these reasons, the court will deny their motion seeking relief from order.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion Seeking Relief from Order (Dkt.
#128) is DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 22, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 22, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?