Opinion
Case No. 11-12020
12-06-2012
W.J. O'NEIL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SHEPLEY, BULFINCH, RICHARDSON & ABBOTT, INC., and SMITH SECKMAN REID, INC., Defendants. and SHEPLEY, BULFINCH, RICHARDSON & ABBOTT, INC., Cross-Claimant, v. SMITH SECKMAN REID, INC., Cross-Defendant.
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 25, 2012, the court issued an "Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal." Thereafter, Plaintiff W.J. O'Neil Company filed an untimely motion for reconsideration. Responses to reconsideration motions are not allowed unless otherwise ordered by the court. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). Having reviewed the motion, the court will require a response. Accordingly,
Though styled as a motion to alter or amend under the Federal Rules, Plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration of the court's order. Reconsideration motions are governed by Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), and must be brought within fourteen days of the order on which reconsideration is sought. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1).
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's motion on or before December 21, 2012. Plaintiff's optional reply is due by December 28, 2012.
____________________
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, December 6, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522