Hunt et al v. Hadden et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID HUNT and
CAROL SANTANGELO,
Plaintiffs,

Case Number 14-10713
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
DONNELLY HADDEN, and
DONNELLY W. HADDEN, P.C.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
partial summary judgment. The Court held a hearing on the defendants’ motion on October 8, 2014
and heard argument from both sides. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court announced its
decision from the bench and granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion.
Additionally, the plaintiffs represented at oral argument that they requested partial summary
judgment in their response brief that there is no issue of material fact that the defendants retained
fees in excess of the parties’ retainer agreement. The applicable electronic filing provision states
that “[a] complaint must not be combined with a motion for preliminary relief and a response or
reply to a motion must not be combined with a counter-motion.” ECF Pol. & Pro. R. 5(e). The
Court will deny the plaintiffs’ motion because it is in violation of the local rules and not otherwise
supported by the record.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment [dkt.
#19] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion
for summary judgment [dkt. #15] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the
reasons stated on the record.
It is further ORDERED that count V of the amended complaint (unjust
enrichment/restitution/forfeiture) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss count VI (constructive trust)
is DENIED. The Court will treat count VI as a request for equitable relief, not a separate cause of
action.
It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss counts VII
(actual/constructive fraud) and VIII (innocent misrepresentation) is DENIED, but the plaintiffs may
ONLY proceed on their allegations about the distribution of the settlement proceeds.
It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects for the
reasons stated on the record.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 9, 2014
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 October 9, 2014.
s/ Marilyn Orem
MARILYN OREM

-2-