Fuentes v. Tubergen

Full title: MARY ANNE FUENTES, Plaintiff, v. MARIE TUBERGEN, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 24, 2008

Case No. 1:07-CV-1159 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 1:07-CV-1159.

March 24, 2008

ORDER

RICHARD ENSLEN, District Judge

Plaintiff's recently filed pro se document, docket number 19, has been indulgently interpreted as a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), since Defendants have filed responsive pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). However, a proposed First Amended Complaint was not attached as an exhibit to said Motion, in violation of W.D. Mich. LCivR 5.7(f). Additionally, W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.1(d) states:

Attempt to obtain concurrence — With respect to all motions, the moving party shall ascertain whether the motion will be opposed . . . All motions shall affirmatively state the efforts of the moving party to comply with the obligation created by this rule.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. However, the Court will consider a future motion complying with the Local Civil Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.