Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation et al

Filing 117

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 9 , 12 , 55 , 86 and 115 Motions for Summary Judgment Without Prejudice and Permitting Plaintiff to Re-File the Single Motion for Summary Judgment Allowed Under the Local Rules. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-12970
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF ## 9, 12, 55, 86, and 115) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO RE-FILE THE SINGLE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWED UNDER THE LOCAL RULES
This Court’s Local Rules provide that a party “must obtain leave of court to
file more than one summary judgment motion.” L.R. 7.1(b)(2). Without seeking
leave of court, Plaintiff Samantha Rajapakse, proceeding pro se, has filed five
motions for summary judgment. (ECF## 9, 12, 55, 86, and 115.)
After Plaintiff filed her third motion for summary judgment (ECF #55), the
assigned Magistrate Judge recognized that Plaintiff may have been attempting to
withdraw at least one of her two earlier summary judgment motions, and the
Magistrate Judge accordingly recommended that the Court require Plaintiff “to
withdraw two of her motions for summary judgment or withdraw one and seek leave
to file the additional motion that she seeks to have heard.” (R & R, ECF #57 at Pg.
1

ID 507.) The Court thereafter entered an order which provided “that by no later than
July 22, 2018, [Plaintiff] shall file a written notice with the Court withdrawing two
of her three currently pending motions (ECF ## 9, 12, and 55). If [Plaintiff] fails to
file such a notice with the Court by July 22, 2018, the Court will dismiss all three
motions without prejudice.” (Order, ECF #65, Pg. ID 556.) Plaintiff failed to file
the required notice.
Instead of filing the required notice, Plaintiff filed two additional motions for
summary judgment. (ECF ## 86 and 115.) Plaintiff filed the latter motion in
violation of an order staying all proceedings. (ECF #99.)
The Court now DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all of Plaintiff’s pending
motions for summary judgment (ECF## 9, 12, 55, 86, and 115). While the Court
affords pro se plaintiffs certain latitude, the Court previously advised Plaintiff that
this would be the consequence of her failure to file the required notice and failure to
comply with Local Rule 7.1(b)(2).
If Plaintiff wishes to file the one summary judgment motion permitted as of
right under the Local Rules, she may do so (upon the lifting of the stay, which shall
occur shortly), and the Court will carefully consider her arguments.
In addition, upon the lifting of the stay, Defendants may re-file a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims (which motion Defendants previously filed and withdrew

2

when it appeared that Plaintiff would accept the appointment of counsel offered by
the Court), and the Court will carefully consider Defendant’s arguments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 10, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 10, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3