W.J. O'Neil Company v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER requiring Response to 33 MOTION for Reconsideration of 32 Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) :( Responses due by 12/21/2012, Replies due by 12/28/2012) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

W.J. O’NEIL COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-12020

SHEPLEY, BULFINCH, RICHARDSON &
ABBOTT, INC., and SMITH SECKMAN REID,
INC.,
Defendants.
and
SHEPLEY, BULFINCH, RICHARDSON &
ABBOTT, INC.,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
SMITH SECKMAN REID, INC.,
Cross-Defendant.
/
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 25, 2012, the court issued an “Opinion and Order Granting
Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal.” Thereafter, Plaintiff
W.J. O’Neil Company filed an untimely motion for reconsideration.1 Responses to
reconsideration motions are not allowed unless otherwise ordered by the court. See

1

Though styled as a motion to alter or amend under the Federal Rules, Plaintiff
essentially seeks reconsideration of the court’s order. Reconsideration motions are
governed by Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), and must be brought within
fourteen days of the order on which reconsideration is sought. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1).

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). Having reviewed the motion, the court will require a response.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion on or
before December 21, 2012. Plaintiff’s optional reply is due by December 28, 2012.

S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 6, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 6, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\11-12020.O'NEIL.ReconsiderationResponse.wpd

2