Pree v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

Filing 36

ORDER Granting Defendant's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KAY PREE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-10999
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #31)
On January 13, 2015, Plaintiff Kay Pree (“Pree”) filed an action in the
Wayne County Circuit Court against Defendant National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, PA (the “Defendant”). (See Compl., ECF #1-2.) Pree
sought to recover no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist benefits from
Defendant. On March 17, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (See
ECF #1.)

On September 24, 2015, Defendant moved for partial summary

judgment on Pree’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. (See ECF #12.) The
Court granted that motion on November 9, 2015. (See ECF #17.)
On May 10, 2016, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment
on Pree’s remaining claim for no-fault benefits (the “Motion”). (See ECF #31.)
1 

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an Order extending the deadline for Pree to
file a response to the Motion. (See ECF #34.) The Court stated that Pree was
required to file her response no later than June 7, 2016. (See id.) Pree, however,
failed to file a response by that date. On July 28, 2016 – over seven weeks after
Pree’s response to the Motion was due – the Court entered an order requiring Pree
to show cause in writing why the Motion should not be granted (the “Show-Cause
Order”). (See ECF #35.) In the Show-Cause Order, the Court warned Pree that
her “failure to respond may result in the dismissal of the Complaint.” (Id. at 2, Pg.
ID 793.) But Pree still failed to respond. Pree’s failure to respond to the Motion
and the Show-Cause Order is part of a larger pattern of failures to comply with the
governing rules and with orders entered in this action.1

Pree failed to file a timely response to Defendant’s initial motion for summary
judgment. Pree responded to that motion only after the Court entered an order
requiring Pree to show cause in writing why that motion should not be granted.
(See ECF #13.) Furthermore, Pree failed to respond to discovery requests, thereby
requiring Defendant to file a motion to compel discovery on November 14, 2015.
(See ECF #28.) The Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel on December
16, 2015. (See ECF #21.) However, Pree failed to comply with the order to
compel, and on January 13, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Pree’s
Complaint due to that failure. (See ECF #25.) Although the Court denied that
motion, the Court noted its “serious concerns about the repeated failure of
Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with orders of this Court and with the rules governing
practice in this Court.” (See ECF #29 at 1, Pg. ID 583.) In the same Order, the
Court also took under advisement “whether to impose a monetary sanction against
Plaintiff’s counsel for failing to provide discovery and failing to comply with the
Court’s discovery orders.” (Id. at 2, Pg. ID 584.)
1

2 

The Court has reviewed the Motion and concludes that Defendant has made
plausible arguments showing that it is entitled to the relief it seeks. Moreover, by
failing to respond to the Motion, Pree has abandoned the lone remaining claim
against Defendant. See Phillips v. UAW Int’l, 149 F. Supp. 3d 790, 798 (E.D.
Mich. 2016) (“A plaintiff abandons undefended claims.”) (citing Doe v. Bredesen,
507 F.3d 998, 1007-08 (6th Cir. 2007)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (ECF #31) is GRANTED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 5, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on August 5, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3