JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget et al

Filing 1127

ORDER STRIKING 1126 Improper Filing. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALTER DOMUS, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

Case Number 08-13845
Honorable David M. Lawson

LARRY J. WINGET and the LARRY J.
WINGET LIVING TRUST,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,
And
ALTER DOMUS, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

Case Number 23-10458
Honorable David M. Lawson

LARRY J. WINGET,
Defendant,
and
JVIS-USA, LLC,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
________________________________________/
ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER FILING
On March 7, 2024, the plaintiff filed a paper in each of these cases styled as a “Status
Report.” (ECF No. 1126, ECF 82). Although the document purports to be a report on the status
of recent settlement efforts through mediation, it plainly requests action from the Court and
therefore should have been designated as a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A request for a
court order must be made by motion.”). In fact, after the statement in the second paragraph of the
filing (“On February 21, 2024, representatives of the parties in the Actions attended a mediation

session with Judge Layn Phillips, but were unable to resolve the Actions.”), nothing in the
document can be characterized fairly as a “status report.” And a status report itself is superfluous,
since the mediator already filed one. See ECF No. 1125, ECF 81.
The plaintiff’s filing appears to be nothing more than a disguised motion that purports to
tell the Court how to adjudicate the dispute. Although the Court appreciates any assistance offered
in good faith to resolve a case, this filing is not in order. In this district, before filing motions,
counsel for the moving party must confer with their counterpart to discuss the proposed motion
and determine if it would be opposed. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). The “Status Report” contains no
indication that counsel for the plaintiff attempted to comply with this requirement, and violations
of the Rule are sanctionable. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(3) (“The court may impose sanctions for . . .
violating this rule, which may include taxing costs and attorney’s fees, denying the motion, and
striking the filing.”). The long-running nature of this litigation provides no excuse for counsel’s
failure to seek concurrence before filing a motion with the Court. Counsel, by now, should be
familiar with this Court’s expectations regarding compliance with the local rules. Under the
circumstances, the Court will strike the improper filing.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court STRIKE the plaintiff’s status report
(Case No. 08-13845, ECF No. 1126; Case No. 23-10458, ECF No. 82).
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: March 8, 2024

-2-