Laborers Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and Vicinity et al v. Demrex Industrial Services, Incorporated

Filing 13

ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule ( Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment due by 9/27/2011; Defendant's Cross Motion and Combined Brief in Opposition due by 10/18/2011, Plaintiffs' Combined Response and Reply due by 11/8/2011 and Defendant's Reply due by 11/22/2011) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Trustees of the LABORERS' PENSION TRUST FUND DETROIT AND VICINITY; LABORERS' VACATION AND HOLIDAY TRUST FUND DETROIT AND VICINITY; LABORERS METROPOLITAN DETROIT HEALTH & WELFARE FUND; and MICHIGAN LABORERS' TRAINING FUND, trust funds established under, and administered pursuant to, federal law, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 11-10071 DEMREX INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, / ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE On September 14, 2011, the court conducted a telephone conference with counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant. During the conference, counsel indicated that the completion of an audit has narrowed the contested issues, and the most efficient way to resolve the above-captioned matter is through motion practice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a motion for judgment on or before September 27, 2011. The motion shall be based, to the extent possible, on a set of stipulated undisputed facts, which shall be incorporated into Plaintiffs’ motion but shall not count toward the twenty-page limit imposed by local rule.1 1 The court employs this briefing method on the assumption that all material facts will be undisputed and require only interpretation. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall take the initiative at arriving at such a stipulated set of facts. Counsel may agree among themselves how best to achieve the end product, but the court suggests that Plaintiffs should serve their proposed facts on Defendant’s counsel. Defendant should then serve Defendant shall file its cross-motion, supported by a combined brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and in support of its motion, by October 18, 2011. The argument portion of the brief shall be limited to twenty-five pages in length. To avoid being administratively rejected by the Clerk’s office, the cross-motion must carry in its title a parenthetical message saying “cross-motion combined with response at the direction of the court.” Plaintiffs shall file their combined reply and response brief by November 8, 2011. The argument portion of the brief shall be limited to twenty-five pages in length. Defendant shall file its reply brief no later than November 22, 2011. The brief shall be limited to ten pages in length.2 Unless otherwise ordered, no hearing shall be scheduled. S/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 19, 2011 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, September 19, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 its reaction to the proposed facts, particularly noting which facts, if any, are disputed, and why, and proposing any additional undisputed facts. Plaintiffs should then incorporate all undisputed facts into their opening brief. If the parties discover that there exists a disputed material fact that seems to require a trial or evidentiary hearing for resolution, they should immediately contact the court for consultation and advice. 2 If counsel believe that they need additional pages to adequately address the relevant issues, they may contact the court’s case manager, who has authority to grant reasonable page length extensions upon request. If the request is not granted by the case manager, counsel will need to file a motion for leave to exceed the page limit. S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\11-10071.LABORERS.BriefingSchedule.jrc.2.wpd 2

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?