Bartel v. Elsaid

Filing 84

ORDER (1) Denying 77 Motion for Stay and (2) Requiring a Response to 83 Motion to Compel Compliance With Court Order. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTINE BARTEL, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-10327 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. OLA ELSAID, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR STAY (ECF No. 77) AND (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER (ECF No. 83) On November 29, 2024, Plaintiff Christine Bartel filed a motion to stay enforcement of certain orders pending her appeal of those orders. (See Mot., ECF No. 77.) On January 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals dismissed Bartel’s appeal. (See Sixth Circuit Case No. 24-2043, Order dated Jan. 25, 2025.) Given the dismissal of Bartel’s appeal, there is no basis for a stay pending appeal. Accordingly, Bartel’s motion for a stay is DENIED. On January 29, 2025, Bartel filed a second motion in which she asks the Court to compel Defendant Ola Elsaid to comply with other orders and to sanction Elsaid. (See Mot., ECF No. 83.) Elsaid shall file a response that motion by no later than February 21, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 29, 2025 s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 29, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?