Winter v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Delaware et al

Filing 31

ORDER finding as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 16 Motion for Order; finding as moot 17 Motion. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY WINTER,
Plaintiff,

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk
Case No. 2:14-cv-10555

v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
DELAWARE and UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE, INC., OHIO,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER
On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff Gregory Winter (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (the
“Original Complaint”) against Defendants United Parcel Service, Inc., Delaware, and United
Parcel Service, Inc., Ohio (“Defendants”). On March 7, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint [dkt 6]. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint (“Amended Complaint”) [dkt 14] and a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint [dkt 15]. On May 15, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [dkt 18] and a Notice of Mootness [dkt 26].
In this Notice of Mootness, Defendants indicate that they believe their motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint was mooted by Plaintiff’s filing of an Amended Complaint. As
such, Defendants state that the only motion pending before the Court is their motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.1

Plaintiff objected to this notice [dkt 27], arguing that

Defendants do not have the authority to make a “unilateral declaration” of mootness.

1

This same argument was presented in a pleading filed by Defendants in response to Plaintiff’s attempt to foreclose
Defendants from filing multiple motions to dismiss.

The Court, being fully advised on the issues presented in the parties’ filings, finds that
Defendants have the right to submit a new motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s filing of an
amended complaint. Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that, due to Plaintiff’s filing of an
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s Original Complaint [dkt 1] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, due to Plaintiff’s filing of an Amended Complaint and
Defendants’ Notice of Mootness with the Court, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint [dkt 6]. Accordingly, the Court also DENIES
AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Deem Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Docketed and
Foreclose Multiple Motion Filings (the “Motion”) [dkt 16] and Defendants’ Motion for
Immediate Consideration of the Motion [dkt 17].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only remaining motion before the Court is
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [dkt 18]. Plaintiff has 14 days
from the date this order is entered to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint if he so chooses. Due to the concerns expressed by Plaintiff in several
filings,2 however, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint should Plaintiff decide not to respond to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The Court notes, however, that it will not consider any
future filings that do not comport with the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Date: June 9, 2014
2

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff expressed concerns with the amount of time already spent on responding to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, along with Plaintiff’s stated issue of replicating work
product between his first response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and any future responses.
3
Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint does not comport with Local
Rule 7.1(d)(3).

2