UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

COMMODITIES EXPORT COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

CITY OF DETROIT, UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, 

Defendants/Cross-Defendants,

and

DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE

COMPANY,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/CrossPlaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

WALTER LUBIENSKI and DEAN AYTES,

Third Party Defendants.

Case No. 09-CV-11060-DT

 /

ORDER STRIKING DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COMPANY’S IMPROPER

RESPONSE BRIEF AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCE 

PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff Commodities Export Company filed a “Renewed

Motion for a Permanent Injunction and a Declaratory Judgment.” On February 26,

2010, Detroit International Bridge Company (“DIBC”) filed its response in opposition to

the motion. The response purports to incorporate by reference all of DIBC’s arguments

contained in the other two response briefs DIBC filed on February 26, 2010, as well as

the arguments contained within DIBC’s February 26, 2010 motion for summary

judgment. This court does not allow briefs to incorporate by reference arguments from
2

other briefs. Not only does such a practice make it cumbersome to analyze motions,

but it circumvents the briefing and page limit requirements set forth in the local rules. 

See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. Therefore, the court will strike the response and order DIBC to

file, at a later date, a proper response brief.

However, there are currently pending before the court three other potentially

(partially) dispositive motions: two filed against DIBC and one filed by DIBC. Upon

preliminary review of those briefs, the court finds that it is most efficient to first resolve

those motions before proceeding to the merits of Plaintiff’s renewed motion for

permanent injunction. Indeed, the outcome of the other pending motions could control,

at least in part, the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion. The court will thus hold Plaintiff’s

renewed motion in abeyance pending resolution of the other motions. Additionally,

because the resolution of the other motions could and likely will alter the landscape of

the issues presented in Plaintiff’s renewed motion, the court will order that the briefing

on the motion be suspended until the other motions are resolved. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that DIBC’s February 26, 2010 response [Dkt. # 67] to Plaintiff’s

“Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction and a Declaratory Judgment” is hereby

STRICKEN from the docket of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Renewed Motion for a Permanent

Injunction and a Declaratory Judgment” [Dkt. # 57] is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the

court’s resolution of the other pending motions. No further briefs shall be filed related to

Plaintiff’s renewed motion until further order of the court.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 5, 2010
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, March 5, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11060.COMMODITIES.StrikeImproperBriefIncorporating.wpd