Young v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 15

ORDER STRIKING FILING 14 Memorandum filed by LaShawn Young. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LASHAWN YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-11028
Honorable Marianne O. Battani
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER STRIKING FILING [14]
On March 19, 2015, Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(“MetLife”) removed the instant case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(f), as the case involves a dispute over
employee benefits, governed by a plan covered by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§1002,
1132(a)(1)(B). The Court held a scheduling conference in this matter,
where the parties were apprised of the proper procedure for such cases
and issued a corresponding scheduling order that permitted 45 days for the
filing of the administrative record, as well as other applicable dates. [R.
11].

On May 28, 2015, Young filed a letter with the Court alleging that
MetLife’s “stall tactics” caused him to be terminated from his employment.
[R. 14]. He alleges that MetLife’s removal of the case to federal court, and
his required presence at the scheduling conference, caused him to miss
training and work, resulting in his termination.
Young’s filing [R. 14] is hereby STRICKEN for failing to comport to
the Federal or Local rules of procedure, and as irrelevant to the issues
present in this case. This case is confined to the question of whether
MetLife’s decision to deny Young short-term disability benefits should be
upheld or reversed, based solely on the administrative record. The Court
will not consider ancillary matters such as Young’s termination from a
separate job.
Further, the Court’s rules require filings to be of proper type and
format. Appropriate filings include pleadings, motions, and briefs in support
of, or responsive to, motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Letters to the court
are not acceptable filings. Id. Filings must also comport with the federal
and local rules regarding format. See e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10; E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 5.1, 7.1. Despite Young’s pro se status, he is nevertheless
required to apprise himself of, and adhere to, the applicable court rules.
Young is advised that any document that either fails to comport with the
2

applicable rules, or concerns matters irrelevant to this case, will be stricken
without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2015

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 29, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

3