Dumas v. Hurley Medical Center et al
OPINION AND ORDER Directing the Defendant City of Flint to file a Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss by 5/27/2011; DENYING AS MOOT 51 Ex Parte MOTION to Strike 50 MOTION to Dismiss for Rule 7.1 violation filed by Lowana Shanell Dumas; Set ting Deadlines and TERMINATING AS MOOT 54 Ex Parte MOTION TO EXTEND Timeline Through Continuance Until June 20 filed by Lowana Shanell Dumas:( Plaintiff's Joint Response to the Motions To Dismiss [ Dkt #50 and 52] due by 6/20/2011, Any Replies due by 7/8/2011) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
LOWANA SHANELL DUMAS,
Case No. 10-12661
HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT CITY OF FLINT
TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS MOTION TO DISMISS,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE, SETTING DEADLINES,
AND TERMINATING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME AS MOOT
On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff Lowana Shanell Dumas filed a second amended
complaint against Defendant City of Flint, Defendants AFSCME Council 25, AFSCME
Local 1603, Deloris Lots, and Patricia Ramirez (collectively “AFSCME”), and Defendant
Hurley Medical Center, together with individual employees (collectively “Hurley”).
Thereafter, Flint filed a motion to dismiss on May 10, 2011, as did Hurley on May 13,
2011. Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to strike Flint’s motion to dismiss, asserting that
it failed to seek concurrence as required by Local Rule 7.1. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). Upon
review of the motion to dismiss, the court cannot discern whether concurrence was
sought. Therefore, it will order Flint to file a supplement to its motion to dismiss by May
27, 2011, indicating, in detail, how concurrence was sought. If Flint did not seek
concurrence prior to filing its motion to dismiss as required by Local Rule 7.1, it will be
directed to seek concurrence prior to filing the supplement. The foregoing renders moot
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Flint’s motion to dismiss, inasmuch as the court will direct Flint
to comply with Local Rule 7.1.
The court will further order a joint response to the motions to dismiss filed by Flint
and Hurley and set a briefing schedule. Plaintiff will be directed to file a joint response
by June 20, 2011, and Defendants Hurley and Flint will be directed to file any replies by
July 8, 2011. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to respond until June 20, 2011,
is also moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant City of Flint is DIRECTED to file a supplement to
its motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 50] by May 27, 2011, indicating with appropriate detail how
concurrence was sought as required by Local Rule 7.1(a). If concurrence was not
sought prior to filing its motion to dismiss, Defendant City of Flint is FURTHER
DIRECTED to seek concurrence prior to filing the supplement to its motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant City of
Flint’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 51] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file a joint response to the motions to
dismiss [Dkt. ## 50 & 52] on or before June 20, 2011. Any reply by Defendant City of
Flint or the Hurley Defendants shall be filed on or before July 8, 2011.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time [Dkt. # 54] is
TERMINATED AS MOOT.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 18, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 18, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10-12661.DUMAS.Order.Concurrence.nkt.wpd
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?