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)
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?