Penn v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER (1) Denying Without Prejudice Defendant Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc.'s 25 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (2) Terminating as Moot Plaintiff's 27 Motion to Extend Time to File a Response. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TODD CHARLES PENN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-10862
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., et al,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT BED BATH
& BEYOND, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #25)
AND (2) TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE (ECF #27)
On March 7, 2018, Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. filed a motion for
summary judgment. (See Bed Bath Mot., ECF #27.) Bed Bath filed its motion well
before the May 14, 2018, fact discovery cutoff and the June 15, 2018, dispositive
motion deadline. (See ECF #24.) Instead of filing a response to Bed Bath’s motion,
Plaintiff Todd Charles Penn has asked the Court to extend the time he has to respond
to the motion until after the close of fact discovery. (See Penn Mot., ECF #27.)
The Court has reviewed both motions and concludes that it is appropriate at
this time to DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Bed Bath’s summary judgment
motion. Bed Bath may re-file its motion after the close of fact discovery. Because

1

the Court has denied Bed Bath’s motion, Penn’s motion for an extension of time to
respond to that motion is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2018

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 27, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2