Townsend v. Marcus Management et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 29 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 32 Motion for Leave to Enter Motion for Estoppel ; denying as moot 36 Motion for Appointment of Expert ; denying as moot 38 Motion to Excuse Concurrence Requirement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (DAll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DIJON TOWNSEND,

v.

Case No. 24-cv-12581
Plaintiff, Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

MARCUS MANAGEMENT, et
al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 30), DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 29), AND DENYING AS
MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ESTOPPEL, FOR APPOINTMENT
OF AN EXPERT, AND TO EXCUSE THE CONCURRENCE
REQUIREMENT (ECF NOS. 32, 36, 38)

Plaintiff Dijon Townsend, proceeding pro se, moves to strike
defendants’ motion to dismiss his claims. ECF No. 30. He argues that the
motion is untimely and that defendants improperly sought concurrence and
moved for dismissal after engaging in settlement discussions.
“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ P.
12(f). Although considered a drastic remedy that is disfavored, striking a
pleading is appropriate to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that

must arise from litigating spurious issues.” Operating Engineers Local 324
Health Care Plan v. G & W Const. Co., 783 F.3d 1045, 1050 (6th Cir. 2015)
(cleaned up).
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was timely. Because they were
served on January 31, 2025, the deadline for filing an answer or other
responsive pleading was February 21, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(a)(1)(A)(i). And Rule 12(b) authorizes defendants to seek dismissal in
lieu of a responsive pleading. Defendants filed their motion on the
February 21 deadline. ECF No. 28.
Townsend’s other arguments are equally frivolous. Defendants
stated that they requested Townsend’s concurrence in the motion, which
was not given. Id., PageID.216. Townsend maintains that defendants
failed to respond to his request for clarification of the basis of the motion.
Even if that is true, Townsend has not shown that he was prejudiced or that
he would have concurred in the motion. See Spicer v. Michigan, No. 2:19cv-13718, 2021 WL 2823092, at *3 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2021); United States
v. Nero, No. 17-cr-20183-5, 2020 WL 7316108, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11,
2020). Last, Townsend offers no authority that a party may not file a
dispositive motion simply because it engaged in settlement discussions,

2

short of making an offer or reaching a formal settlement. Thus,
Townsend’s motion to strike is DENIED.
Several other motions remain pending, including defendants’ motion
to strike Townsend’s pre-service motions and to stay the proceedings (ECF
No. 29) and Townsend’s motions for estoppel (ECF No. 32), for
appointment of an expert (ECF No. 36), and to excuse the concurrence
requirement (ECF No. 38). Given the Court’s recommendation to dismiss
the action, these motions are DENIED as moot.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 12, 2025

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on March 12, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager

4