Craft et al v. Billingslea et al, No. 2:2017cv12752 - Document 180 (E.D. Mich. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 178 MOTION for Reconsideration re 176 Order to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 150 Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Craft et al v. Billingslea et al Doc. 180 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION D’MARCO CRAFT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Case No. 17-cv-12752 v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN RICHARD BILLINGSLEA, ET AL., Defendants. ______________ / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER [#176] Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Order, filed on October 9, 2019. ECF No. 178. Plaintiffs request that this Court reconsider its October 9, 2019 Order striking Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 176-177. This Court’s Order concluded that Plaintiffs failed to abide by the Court’s Local Rule 5.1 regarding double-spacing. E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.1(a)(2). Plaintiffs now ask for relief under Rule 60, arguing that the Microsoft Word software does not create “a true double-space” that complies with the local rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; ECF No. 178, PageID.8160. Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Civ. P. 60(a). Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or other proceeding for the following reasons: . . . mistake [or] inadvertence . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “the party seeking relief Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing grounds for such relief by clear and convincing evidence." Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merchandising, Inc., 538 F. 3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to persuade the Court that Microsoft’s doublespacing function fails to comply with Local Rule 5.1. Plaintiffs did not identify any clerical error or mistake in the prior Order that would provide grounds for relief under Rule 60. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiffs appeared to comply with the correct spacing requirements under Local Rule 5.1 in their Reply filed on September 20, 2019. ECF No. 172. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Order [#178]. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s prior Order remain in place. See ECF No. 176, PageID.8155. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 15, 2019 s/Gershwin A. Drain HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Court Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, October 15, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Teresa McGovern Case Manager 3
]]>
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.
