DeLazzer v. Perry
ORDER denying 25 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case Number 12-12326
Honorable David M. Lawson
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
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
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?