Hieber v. Oakland County
This text of Hieber v. Oakland County (Hieber v. Oakland County) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID HIEBER, Case No. 22-11417
Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. United States District Judge
OAKLAND COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants. ___________________________ /
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE (ECF No. 59), DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING (ECF No. 49), and DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 60)
On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for a status conference (ECF No. 59), seeking to have his motion to enforce the settlement agreement (ECF No. 29), which is scheduled for hearing on September 27, 2023, heard before he is required to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63) because if the court grants the motion to enforce the settlement, the motion for summary judgment will presumably be moot. The court held a status conference on August 31, 2023 and thus, this motion is GRANTED. Further, the court will determine at the hearing on September 27, 2023 the deadline for Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment and that deadline is held in abeyance until then. Next, Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement is also therefore DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 49). Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s decision to extend the
time for Defendants to file their motion for summary judgment and exceed the page limit is DENIED as that decision is well within the exercise of this court’s
discretion (ECF No. 60). See e.g., S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 714 (6th Cir. 2006)) (“The interpretation and application of local rules ‘are matters within the district
court's discretion.’”); Anthony v. BTR Auto. Sealing Sys., Inc., 339 F.3d 506, 516 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[T]rial courts have inherent power to control their dockets.”). SO ORDERED.
Date: September 1, 2023 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hieber v. Oakland County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hieber-v-oakland-county-mied-2023.