Dibbern v. University of Michigan et al
Filing
19
ORDER re 12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Tresa Pollock, Rachel Goldman, Peter Green, Mary Sue Coleman, University of Michigan, The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jennifer Dibbern,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 12-15632
The University of Michigan, et al.,
Honorable Sean F. Cox
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Jennifer Dibbern (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants on December
21, 2012. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, asserting multiple counts, on January 25, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, Defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss. (Docket Entry
No. 12). Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal of only certain counts of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint
In that motion, Defendants also assert that “[t]he parties have agreed to dismiss Counts
III and V as to the University of Michigan and the Board of Regents of the University of
Michigan with prejudice because they are barred by the 11th Amendment. The parties have
further agreed to dismiss Counts III and V as to the individual Defendants in their official
capacities except to the extent that prospective, non-monetary relief is granted pursuant to the
doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441 (1908).” (Docket Entry No. 12
at 3). To date, however, the parties have not submitted a stipulation and order regarding the
above alleged agreements between the parties.
1
On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a brief opposing Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss.
Nevertheless, that response brief also states that “[s]hould the court deem it necessary, Plaintiff
will move for leave to amend” and attaches a proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Pl.’s Br.
at 13; see also Docket Entry No. 17-10, Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint). The
proposed Second Amended Complaint continues to assert Counts III and V against “All
Defendants.” (See Docket Entry No. 17-10 at 38 and 41).
Plaintiff is not entitled to an advisory opinion from this Court informing her of any
deficiencies in her Amended Complaint and then an opportunity to cure those deficiencies.
Begala v. PNC Bank, 214 F.3d 776, 784 (6th Cir. 2000); Louisiana Sch. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Ernst
& Young, LLP, 622 F.3d 471, 486 (6th Cir. 2010).
The Court hereby ORDERS that if Plaintiff wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint,
she shall file a formal motion seeking leave to do so no later than May 31, 2013. If Plaintiff
does not file a motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by that date, the Court
shall proceed to hear and determine Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss, which has been fully
briefed by the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties agree that any counts and/or claims
against certain Defendants should be dismissed or limited they shall submit an appropriate
stipulation and order as to those claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: May 17, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
2
May 17, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager
3
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?