Auramet International, LLC v. Brink's U.S., a division of Brink's, Incorporated

Filing 7

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT 4 AND STRIKING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 5 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 5.1(A)(3). Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AURAMET INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-13630

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

BRINK’S U.S., A DIVISION OF BRINK’S,
INCORPORATED,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANTHONY P. PATTI

Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED
PAGE LIMIT [4] AND STRIKING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [5] FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 5.1(A)(3)
On May 12, 2016, Auramet International, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Auramet”)
brought suit against Brink’s U.S., a division of Brink’s, Incorporated (“Brink’s” or
“Defendant”) in the Eastern District of Michigan regarding losses of approximately
$4 million dollars from Auramet’s vault at Brink’s facility in Detroit, Michigan.
See Auramet International, LLC v. Brink’s U.S., No. 16-cv-11700 (E.D. Mich. July
27, 2016). Brink’s then moved to dismiss the case, arguing, in part, that Auramet
failed to properly pled diversity jurisdiction. Auramet’s response stated: “Upon
review of Defendant’s motion and following a discussion of the jurisdictional
issues with defense counsel, Plaintiff has concluded that diversity jurisdiction is
lacking in this case.” The case was then voluntarily dismissed.

-1-

On September 14, 2016, Auramet filed suit against Brink’s in Wayne
County Circuit Court, alleging the same causes of action as in the previous suit in
federal district court. See Dkt. No. 1-2, pp. 15–27 (Pg. ID No. 28–40). Brink’s then
removed the suit back to federal district court on October 12, 2016, alleging that
diversity jurisdiction exists. See Dkt. No. 1.
On October 19, 2016, Brink’s filed two motions. First, Brink’s filed an Ex
Parte Motion for Leave to File Motion to Exceed the Page Limit in Brief in
Support of Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike. Dkt. No. 4. In that motion, Brink’s
seeks permission to file a brief that exceeds the normal page limit of 25 pages, but
that does not exceed thirty (30) pages in length. The Court will GRANT this
motion and allow Defendant to file a brief not to exceed 30 pages as part of its
motion.
In the second motion, Brink’s filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(7). Dkt. No. 5. Although this motion fell
within the normal page limits set for briefs, Local Rule 7.1(d)(3)(A), it contains
several lengthy footnotes in a small type size that violates Local Rule 5.1(a)(3).
E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.1(a)(3) (“Except for standard preprinted forms that are in
general use, type size of all text and footnotes must be no smaller than 10‐1/2
characters per inch (non‐proportional) or 14 point (proportional).”) (emphasis

-2-

added). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for its
failure to comply with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 21, 2016
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-3-