DeLazzer v. Perry

Filing 26

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS DELAZZER, Petitioner, Case Number 12-12326 Honorable David M. Lawson v. MITCH PERRY, Respondent. _____________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS On November 7, 2012, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss. 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 respondent does not state in his motion that concurrence was sought from the petitioner 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 respondent has filed his motion in violation of the applicable rules. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the respondent’s motion to dismiss [dkts. #25] is DENIED. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: November 8, 2012 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. 8, 2012. s/Deborah R. Tofil DEBORAH R. TOFIL -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?