Fox v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, No. 2:2016cv14030 - Document 25 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration 22 And Extending Scheduling Deadlines 24 . Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fox v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GARY FOX, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 16-CV-14030 HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Defendant. ____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND EXTENDING SCHEDULING DEADLINES This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 7, 2017, Order granting plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw [docket entry 22]. Defendant has filed a response. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide this motion without a hearing. On July 7, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw. Plaintiff’s attorney had cited an irreconcilable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.1 Mot. to Withdraw p. 2. He and plaintiff had fundamentally disagreed regarding future action. Id. This, under Michigan’s rules of professional conduct, suffices to allow an attorney to withdraw. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration fails to offer any reason why the Court should vacate its order. Indeed, plaintiff does not disagree that there was not a fundamental disagreement or irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Pro se filings should be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), but the Court’s liberality is not limitless. Plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred, so his motion for reconsideration is denied. 1 Defendant’s response notes that this irreconcilable difference presented itself in the middle of plaintiff’s deposition. Dockets.Justia.com Further, “in light of the uncertainty regarding plaintiff’s representation,” defendant requests that all scheduling deadlines be extended. The Court finds that defendant has shown good cause for such an extension and that it is in the interests of justice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future deadlines shall be extended sixty days; the Clerk shall issue an amendment scheduling order reflecting this change. Dated: August 23, 2017 Detroit, Michigan s/Bernard A. Friedman BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 23, 2017. s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams Acting in the Absence of Carol Mullins Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
