Jenkins v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA

Filing 28

ORDER STRIKING 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENYING AS MOOT 27 Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Briefing. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY JENKINS,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
v.

Case No. 13-11091

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN

Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
/

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff Timothy Jenkins filed a motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 25). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules 5.1(a)(3)
and 7.1(a). Local Rule 5.1(a)(3) requires for all papers presented for filing that the
“type size of all text and footnotes must be no smaller than 10-1/2 characters per
inch (non-proportional) or 14 point (proportional).”1 Local Rule 7.1(a) requires
seeking concurrence in motions. This Court’s practice guidelines note that “[t]he
Court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a) regarding concurrence, and
the Court will impose costs for failure to comply with the Local Rule” and that “[t]he
Court enforces the page limit set forth by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(3)and the
formatting/type size requirements set forth by E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a).”2
The Court, therefore, ORDERS the following:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) is STRICKEN.

While the Court believes that 12-point type is not objectively unreasonable for a Court filing, the
rules require 14-point type, and if the motion were filed in 14-point type the brief would be overlong.
1

2

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=459.

(2) If Plaintiff would like to refile his motion for summary judgment, it must first
conform to the Local Rules.
(3) Defendants’ motion to consolidate briefing (Dkt. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 23, 2013

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on December 23, 2013, using
the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
By: s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

2