Opinion
Case Number 12-12326
11-08-2012
THOMAS DELAZZER, Petitioner, v. MITCH PERRY, Respondent.
Honorable David M. Lawson
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
On November 7, 2012, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss. In this district, movants must seek concurrence in the relief requested before filing a motion or request with this Court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). If concurrence is obtained, the parties then may present a stipulated order to the Court. If concurrence is not obtained, Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires that the moving party state in the motion that "there was a conference between the attorneys . . . in which the movant explained the nature of the motion and its legal basis and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought [ ] or . . . despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion, the movant was unable to conduct a conference." E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2).
The respondent does not state in his motion that concurrence was sought from the petitioner before filing the motion. "It is not up to the Court to expend its energies when the parties have not sufficiently expended their own." Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 101 (D. Mass. 1996). The respondent has filed his motion in violation of the applicable rules.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the respondent's motion to dismiss [dkts. #25] is DENIED.
____________________
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on November. 8, 2012.