Shefman v. American Airlines, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING DENYING WITHOUT Prejudice Plaintiff's 49 MOTION TO EXTEND filed by Peter Shefman., and setting briefing schedule re: 59 Motion to Dismiss,,( Response due by 3/25/2019, Reply due by 4/8/2019)--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PETER SHEFMAN,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11477
District Judge David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
__________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
EXTEND SCHEDULING DATES (DE 49) and SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 59)
The Court’s August 30, 2018 scheduling order sets a March 29, 2019
discovery cutoff. (DE 21.) Currently before the Court are two motions: (1)
Plaintiff’s January 23, 2019 motion to extend scheduling dates due to Plaintiff’s
medical condition and proceeding in pro per (DE 49), regarding which Defendant
has filed an opposition (DE 52); and, (2) Defendant’s February 26, 2019 motion to
dismiss (DE 59), wherein Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with the
Court’s February 7, 2019 order (DE 55), failed to comply with the Court’s August
30, 2018 scheduling order (DE 21), and also has failed to prosecute his case.
Judge Lawson has referred this case to me for screening and general case
management. (DE 51.) The Court noticed a telephonic status conference for
February 26, 2019, at which Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf and attorneys
1 

Scott R. Torpey and Justin M. Schmidt appeared on behalf of the Defendant. (See
DE 55 at 3, DE 56.) For the reasons stated on the record, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff’s motion to extend scheduling dates (DE
49) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should the Court deny (or deny in
part) Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (DE 59), Plaintiff may refile his
request for an extension of dates or the Court may address that issue sua sponte.
Meanwhile, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (DE 59) is due
on or before Monday, March 25, 2019, and Defendant’s reply is due on or before
Monday, April 8, 2019. Importantly, the parties’ attention is drawn to: (a) the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (“Sanctions
Sought in the District Where the Action Is Pending.”) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
(“Involuntary Dismissal; Effect.”); (b) the Local Rules of the E.D. Mich.,
particularly E.D. Mich. LR 5.1 (“Filing of Papers”) and E.D. Mich. LR 7.1
(“Motion Practice”); and (c) the Undersigned’s Practice Guidelines, which provide
in part:
The Court adheres to E.D. Mich LR 5.1 and 7.1 regarding format,
length, and form of motions and briefs, and the type of briefs required
and permitted. Additional briefing, including sur-replies, will NOT be
permitted unless requested by the Court. The Court will strike any
improperly filed sur-replies or other briefing not contemplated by the
Local Rules. In addition, all briefs must contain an index of exhibits,
and the Court requires a table of contents for briefs over ten pages.
(See www.mied.uscourts.gov (emphasis added)).
2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2019

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on February 27, 2019, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3