Zola H. et al v. Snyder et al
Filing
71
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 63 Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Add and Delete Parties, and DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ZOLA H., et al,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 12-14073
v.
RICK SNYDER, et al,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
ADD AND DELETE PARTIES; AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
The matter before the court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment;
Motion for Protective Order; and Motion to Add/Delete Parties.” [Dkt. # 63] As the title
of the motion reveals, it is actually three motions combined into one. Plaintiffs are
advised that going forward, motions should be filed separately and should not be
combined into a single motion addressing multiple discrete topics. Relatedly, the court
notes that Plaintiffs did not seek concurrence of opposing counsel prior to filing this
motion. Local Rule 7.1(a), as well as the court’s motion practice guidelines, requires
parties to seek concurrence in the relief requested prior to filing a motion. This rule
saves both the court and the parties time by allowing agreed-upon issues to be
disposed of quickly and easily. A violation of this rule may result in a summary denial of
the motion, as well as the imposition of an appropriate sanction upon the responsible
attorneys. E.D. Mich. L. R. 11.1. In the future, motions filed in violation of the local
rules or the court’s case management rules will be stricken from the docket and
summarily denied.
A. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiffs request that the court allow them to use pseudonyms in order to protect
the minor children who are parties to this action. Plaintiffs further request that
pseudonyms be extended to the children’s parents as well, so that the children are not
identifiable by association. None of the Defendants have objected to this request. The
court recognizes the sensitive nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations and agrees that a
protective order is necessary. Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is granted, and
Plaintiffs will be permitted to use pseudonyms in this proceeding.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add or Delete Parties
Plaintiffs ask that the following parties be dismissed from this action: Defendants
Rick Snyder, Duane Berger, Steve Yager, Cathe Hoover, Ingham County Department of
Human Services, Clinton County Department of Human Services, Joel Brown, Angela
Wright, Melissa Jenniches, Tania Otero, Linda Keller, Nancy Hill-Leadmon, Kay
Andrzejak, James Paparella, Latrice Neal, Kumari Reynolds, and Plaintiffs John Smith,
Robert Jones, and Lisa Anderson. However, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not
name any of the above individuals as parties. Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs’ request to
dismiss these parties should be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs also request that the following defendants be added to this action:
Michigan Department of Human Services, Claudia Bahrie, Mary Beth Grim, Barbara
Lund, and Kate Hanley. With the exception of Kate Hanley, all of these parties appear
as Defendants in the Amended Complaint. Hanley is neither listed as a Defendant nor
mentioned in the Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to add Hanley is
2
denied. For the time being, the court will allow Plaintiffs to add the Michigan
Department of Human Services, Claudia Bahrie, Mary Beth Grim, and Barbara Lund as
Defendants in this action. The court expresses no view as to the legitimacy of an action
against these parties, and Defendants are free to renew their arguments in their
respective motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs also seek to retain Defendants Felicia Beadle and Debra Marre as
Defendants in this action. In Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss the
original complaint, Plaintiffs stated: “Plaintiffs[] stipulate that Ennis Center Defendants:
. . . Felisha Beadle, and Debbi Marre be dismissed from the lawsuit based on Ennis
Center’s representation that they were never employees[.]” (Pg. ID# 1985.) Because
the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ original complaint in its entirety, there was no need to
address this issue.
The State Defendants now argue that Plaintiffs, having previously agreed to
dismiss Beadle and Marre, may not now retain them as parties to the lawsuit. Normally
it is true that “if parties could challenge their prior stipulations at will, stipulations would
lose much of their purpose.” Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 928
F.2d 751, 759 (6th Cir. 1991). However, Plaintiffs’ allegations in their Amended
Complaint differ from their previous allegations in the original complaint in an important
way; in their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Beadle and Marre
are employees of Defendant Genesee County Department of Human Services rather
than employees of Defendant Ennis Center for Children. Plaintiffs’ stipulated dismissal
in their response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss appears to have been based on a
representation by Defendant Ennis Center that Beadle and Marre never worked for the
3
Ennis Center. Plaintiffs have corrected this apparently mistaken allegation, and now
allege that Beadle and Marre were employees of a separate and unrelated Defendant,
the Genesee County Department of Human Services. Time will tell whether Beadle and
Marre are more accurately named as employees of Genesee County, and the court will
address this issue if it arises.
C. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Plaintiffs move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) which provides:
“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of the judgment.” A judgment has not been entered in this case. On September
3, 2013, the court issued an “Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss” dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint, but allowing Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs cite Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1979), as support for
their argument that a motion under Rule 59(e) is proper despite the lack of a judgment
to challenge. However, in Smith the court had granted the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, but not yet issued a separate judgment as required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58(a). Thus, a final disposition of the case had been obtained at the
time the Smith plaintiffs made their motion. In the present case, a final order has not
been entered and Plaintiffs have been permitted to file an amended complaint to cure
the defects identified in the court’s September 3, 2013, Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs’
motion to alter or amend judgment is denied.
To the extent Plaintiffs seek clarification of the court’s prior order regarding
issues of sovereign immunity, Plaintiffs were granted leave to correct the defects in their
Complaint (if the defects could be corrected) in their Amended Complaint. The court will
4
consider any additional arguments by the parties regarding sovereign immunity as part
of renewed motions to dismiss by Defendants. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order is GRANTED. [Dkt.
# 63]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to add as Defendants the
Michigan Department of Human Services, Claudia Bahrie, Mary Beth Grim, Barbara
Lund is GRANTED. Leave to add Defendant Kate Hanley is DENIED. [Dkt. # 63]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend judgment is
DENIED. [Dkt. # 63]
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 8, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, November 8, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\12-14073.ZOLAH.MotAmendJ,ProtectOrder,AddParties.jac.wpd
5
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?