ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM v. General Motors LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedSeptember 29, 2023
Docket2:20-cv-10562
StatusUnknown

This text of ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM v. General Motors LLC (ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM v. General Motors LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM v. General Motors LLC, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. 2:20-CV-10562-TGB-DRG PILGRIM, et al.,

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING vs. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION GENERAL MOTORS LLC, (ECF NO. 36) Defendant. On December 6, 2022, the Court issued an order (ECF No. 39) regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute the Estate of John LeBar, administered by Linda LeBar, in place of Plaintiff John LeBar (ECF No. 36). That order called for additional information to be submitted to the Court within 14 days of issuance because Plaintiffs’ motion appeared to be procedurally defective in several ways, not in the least because Plaintiffs failed to indicate to the Court whether they sought concurrence in the relief requested—as required by Local Rule 7.1(a). Plaintiffs disregarded the order and, several months later, still have not provided the Court with the information it requested. Nonetheless, Defendant General Motors has not opposed the motion. And the Court’s review of other material in the record—in particular, Linda LeBar’s verification of her late husband’s responses to GM’s first set of interrogatories, ECF No. 38-2, PageID.2687—is sufficient to demonstrate to the Court that the Estate of John LeBar is not being unwittingly “thrust … into a case that [it] would rather not be

in, or at least not as the client of” the late Mr. LeBar’s counsel. Atkins v. City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution (ECF No. 36) will be GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED THAT Named Plaintiff John LeBar is formally substituted with the Estate of John LeBar. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Atkins Ex Rel. Atkins v. City of Chicago
547 F.3d 869 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM v. General Motors LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-william-d-pilgrim-v-general-motors-llc-mied-2023.