UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HUGH MACEACHERN,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 15-CV-12448

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

QUICKEN LOANS INC., and

TITLE SOURCE, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 25) AND 

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 29)

This employment discrimination action arises out of pro se plaintiff Hugh

MacEachern’s allegations that he was terminated on the basis of his gender, age, and

Caucasian race in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and

in retaliation for initiating discussions with a union. Plaintiff filed a motion to enjoin

defendants from settling a case pending before the National Labor Relations Board

(“NLRB”) without his consent. In considering plaintiff’s motion, the court is mindful that a

pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than an attorney, and his papers shall be

liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hahn v. Star Bank, 190

F.3d 708, 715 (6th Cir. 1999). Defendants Quicken Loans, Inc. and Title Source, Inc., 

oppose his motion, seek to strike it, and seek sanctions against plaintiff for filing a frivolous

motion and directing attacks against them. Defendants not only seek monetary sanctions

against plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, but seek a court order preventing him

from filing any papers without first obtaining court authorization. 

-1-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 436
Plaintiff is not a party to the case pending before the NLRB. (Doc. 29, Ex. 2). His

discrimination claim filed with the NLRB has been dismissed. Even if plaintiff were a party

to that proceeding, this court lacks the power to enjoin a case pending before the NLRB. 

See Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 48 (1938); Zipp v. Geske & Sons,

Inc., 103 F.3d 1379, 1382 (7th Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that a district court has no

jurisdiction to enjoin unfair labor practice hearings before the NLRB.”); Saginaw Chippewa

Indian Tribe of Mich. v. NLRB, 838 F. Supp. 2d 598, 603 (E.D. Mich. 2011). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion for an injunction shall be denied. 

The court turns now to defendants’ motion to strike and for sanctions. Defendants

seek to strike plaintiffs’ motion for injunction in order to remove plaintiff’s “irrelevant and

inflammatory remarks from the public record.” (Doc. 29, ¶ 4). Such extraordinary relief is

not warranted. As to irrelevant remarks, if this were a proper basis for striking submissions

from the public record, the court is doubtful many papers would survive such scrutiny. 

Next, defendants’ argument plaintiff’s “inflammatory remarks” should be stricken is no less

compelling. Defendants, through able counsel, have responded to plaintiff’s attacks in their

written brief which is a matter of public record. 

 The court has reviewed the statements plaintiff made and does not find them worthy

of the draconian sanctions defendants seek to impose. Defendants claim the following

statements warrant sanctions: “Mr. Emerson’s (CEO of Quicken Loans) email is only one

of many unprofessional examples of his impolitic behavior, and demonstrates his limited

awareness of laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation . . . . A far cry from Quicken’s

CEO’s libelous and inappropriate mass email publically assaulting the plaintiff with ridicule,

intimidation, humiliation, insults, stupidity and a vow to fight in court to the end with victory

-2-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 437
in sight.” (Doc. 34 at 3-4). Considered in context, the comments do not warrant sanctions. 

They were made in response to the mass email written by the CEO of Quicken Loans,

which was circulated to its 12,000 employees, stating:

The complaint to the NLRB was made by Hugh MacEachern, a former team

member, who has filed numerous misguided and ridiculous complaints

against Quicken Loans and Title Source, including that he was discriminated

against during his time with the company, perhaps a first for a white male. 

Needless to say the claims are baseless. All of MacEachern’s complaints

have been summarily dismissed as laughable. . . . We plan to fight this action

in court, and while it will likely take a while to resolve, we believe strongly that

we will win in the end. 

(Doc. 25 at 30-31). Given the text of the email, plaintiff’s characterization of it does not

seem unduly “inflammatory” as defendants suggest. In any event, defendants will have a

full and fair opportunity to respond to the accusations through this litigation.

Defendants also argue that plaintiff has accused them of criminal misconduct. In

support of this claim, they rely on the following accusations set forth in plaintiff’s motion: 

(1) defendants are “now covertly attempting to tamper with the plaintiff’s evidence,” and (2)

defendants are engaged in “an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the

judicial system’s ability to impartially adjudicate this matter by unfairly hampering the

plaintiff’s ability to present his case while in the safe haven” of the district court. (Doc. 25

at 5). Both of the above statements derive from plaintiff’s mistaken belief that defendants

cannot settle the case pending before the NLRB without his approval, or that the matter

pending before the NLRB has any bearing on his discrimination case pending here. While

the NLRB proceeding may have stemmed from plaintiff’s complaints, the NLRB has

dismissed plaintiff’s case and he is not a party to that proceeding. Plaintiff’s accusations

appear unfounded, but they seem to derive from his confusion over legal issues and not

-3-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 438
from any malicious intent. Given plaintiff’s pro se and in forma pauperis status, his

comments do not warrant the imposition of monetary sanctions at this time. Plaintiff is

cautioned, however, to avoid personal attacks on the defendants or their lawyers in the

future. Such continued conduct may warrant the imposition of sanctions. 

Defendants also argue that plaintiff has abused the judicial process because he filed

three motions in addition to the motion to compel: (1) a motion for appointment of counsel,

(2) a motion to shift discovery costs, and (3) a motion for time extension to respond to

discovery requests. The court has considered defendants’ argument and finds it to be

without merit. The first two motions are not so unusual but are the type of motions

submitted in most cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. As to the

motion for a time extension, this is a relatively routine motion that, contrary to defendants’

argument, does not appear to be designed to “vex” defendants. Certainly, the filing of

these three motions does not amount to the sort of repeated frivolous filings warranting

monetary sanctions.

Finally, the court rejects defendants’ request that this court bar plaintiff from filing

any papers without first obtaining court authorization. Defendants argue this will save

judicial resources, but this is unlikely. Requiring plaintiff to seek authorization each time

he wishes to file papers, given the current record, would serve no useful purpose and would

not curtail, but rather likely would expand, the time required of this court to review and

decide additional motions. 

In sum, plaintiff’s motion for an injunction (Doc. 25) is DENIED, and defendants’ 

-4-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 439
motion to strike and for sanctions (Doc. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and

on Hugh Maceachern, 22126 Hayes Street, Taylor, MI 48180

on December 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-5-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 440