UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RUTH JARRETT-COOPER and 

EXCLUSIVE EVENTS & 

ACCOMODATIONS, L.L.C., 

Plaintiffs, 

Case No. 14-12640 

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant. 

 /

ORDER 

 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendant’s motion to dismiss in 

abeyance and/or to extend time for filing Plaintiffs’ response thereto [dkt. 6]. On July 3, 2014, 

Defendant removed this matter from Wayne County Circuit Court. On July 9, 2014, Defendant 

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and/or for summary judgment (“motion to 

dismiss”) [dkt. 3]. Plaintiffs argue they anticipate filing a motion for remand in this matter, along 

with a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiffs contend that they should be afforded “the full time permitted by statute to file 

their motion for remand, which will contest this court’s jurisdiction, and have that motion fully 

resolved, before they are required to respond to defendant’s dispositive motion.” Plaintiffs go on 

to reference numerous “obligations” their attorney has over the coming months, including 

working on other professional matters and taking a two-week vacation in August. As such, 

Plaintiffs request that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be held in abeyance until Plaintiffs’ 

anticipated motion for remand is filed and resolved by this Court, or that Plaintiffs be granted an 

extension to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss until at least September 3, 2014. 

2:14-cv-12640-LPZ-RSW Doc # 7 Filed 07/23/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 327
2 

Plaintiffs cite to absolutely no authority supporting their request that this Court hold 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss in abeyance. Indeed, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ 

assertions that requiring Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss prior to filing a 

motion for remand would be “illogical and anomalous.”1

 Further, Plaintiffs give no indication as 

to why they would be unable to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss while also filing a 

motion for remand.2

 Finally, Plaintiffs fail to provide any meaningful rationale as to why they 

would be prejudiced by this Court refusing to extend Plaintiffs’ response deadline to Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss by more than one month.3

The Court thus finds that holding Defendant’s motion to dismiss in abeyance until 

Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for remand is filed and fully resolved is not warranted. The Court 

further finds that Plaintiffs have adequate time to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and 

to file any anticipated motion to remand. 

Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss in abeyance and/or to extend time for filing Plaintiffs’ response thereto [dkt. 6] 

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

 HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

Date: July 23, 2014 U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

 

1

 Not lost on the Court is Plaintiffs’ anomalous decision to file the present action when a strikingly similar case – 

involving the same parties, the same series of events, and the same causes of action – was previously decided by this 

Court (“Jarrett-Cooper I”). 

2

 In Jarrett-Cooper I, Plaintiffs challenged this Court’s jurisdiction no less than seven times. The Court found that it 

had jurisdiction each and every time, a finding that was later confirmed by the Sixth Circuit after Plaintiffs appealed. 3

 The strikingly similar nature of the instant matter to Jarrett-Cooper I indicates to the Court that the standard 

amount of time to respond contained in the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules is more than enough. 

2:14-cv-12640-LPZ-RSW Doc # 7 Filed 07/23/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 328