Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. MPC Investors, LLC et al

Filing 512

ORDER denying 511 Motion to Quash without prejudice. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 09-11249
Honorable David M. Lawson

MPC INVESTORS, LLC, DOMINIC MOCERI,
GERALD CARNAGO, FRANCIS V MOCERI,
MARIANO MOCERI, PETER K BURTON,
ROBERT M KATZMAN, LAURENCE R GOSS,
STEVEN BENTLEY, SALVATORE J
PALAZZOLO, SEBASTIAN D PALAZZOLO,
GREGORY A CARNAGO, and DOMINIC J.
MOCERI,
Defendants,

v.
CHARLES SCHWAB AND COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
AND PIERCE FENNER MERRILL LYNCH,
Garnishee defendants,
and
GREGORY A CARNAGO and GERALD CARNAGO,
Cross-Claimants,
v.
LAURENCE R GOSS, STEVEN BENTLY,
SALVATORE J PALAZZOLO, SEBASTIAN D
PALAZZOLO, PETER K BURTON, and ROBERT M
KATZMAN,
Cross-Defendants
_______________________________________________/

O R D E R
D E N Y I N G
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION
OF JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH
SUBPOENA FOR TAKING OF
CREDITOR’S EXAM

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR TAKING OF CREDITOR’S EXAM
Presently before the Court is a motion by defendants Salvatore J. Palazzolo and Sebastian
D. Palazzolo for entry of satisfaction of judgment and to quash a subpoena for the taking of a
creditor’s exam. In this district, movants must seek concurrence in the relief requested before filing
a motion or request with this Court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). If concurrence is obtained, the parties
then may present a stipulated order to the Court. If concurrence is not obtained, Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)
requires that the moving party state in the motion that “there was a conference between the attorneys
. . . in which the movant explained the nature of the motion and its legal basis and requested but did
not obtain concurrence in the relief sought [ ] or . . . despite reasonable efforts specified in the
motion, the movant was unable to conduct a conference.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2).
The defendants do not state in their motion that concurrence was sought from the plaintiff
before filing the motion. “It is not up to the Court to expend its energies when the parties have not
sufficiently expended their own.” Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 101 (D. Mass. 1996).
The defendants have filed their motion in violation of the applicable rules.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for entry of satisfaction of
judgment and to quash subpoena for taking of creditor’s exam [dkt. #511] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: November 23, 2011

-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on November 23, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-3-