UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

BHELLIOM ENTERPRISES CORP., 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-13783 

CORRECTED LIVING ESSENTIALS’ MOTION TO 

STRIKE BHELLIOM’S UNTIMELY SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTION (DKT. #64) 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 2999
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

ISSUE PRESENTED ..................................................................................................................... iii

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1

A. This Court Has Discretion to Strike Untimely Pleadings ....................................... 1

B. This Court Should Strike Bhelliom’s Untimely Summary Judgment 

Motion ..................................................................................................................... 2

C. LE is Entitled to Its Costs and Attorney’ Fees ........................................................ 3

 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 3000
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 

 226 F.3d 483 (6th Cir.2000) ............................................................................................... 1 

Castleberry v. Neumann Law P.C., 

 2008 WL 5744179 (W.D. Mich. 2008) ................................................................................ 1 

Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., 

 925 F.2d 993 (6th Cir.1991) ............................................................................................... 2 

Krantz, Inc. v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 

 408 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.S.D. 2005) ...................................................................................... 1 

Pinero v. Corp Courts at Miami Lakes, Inc., 

 2009 WL 1424173 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2009) ..................................................................... 4 

Pride v. BIC Corp., 

 218 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.2000) ............................................................................................... 1 

United States v. Rayco, Inc., 

 616 F.2d 462 (10th Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................ 2 

Westrick v. Dow Corning Corp., 

 2008 WL 269068, (E.D. Ky. Jan. 29, 2008) ....................................................................... 3 

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 ........................................................................................................................ 2, 3 

 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3001
iii 

ISSUE PRESENTED 

 Should this Court strike Bhelliom’s Motion for Summary Judgment seeking an order that 

Living Essentials’ infringed its MR ENERGY trademark, filed in Docket No. 64, because it is 

untimely and in violation of L.R. 7.1(b)(2)? 

Living Essentials Answers: Yes

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 3002
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In response (Dkt. #64) to an Innovation Ventures (“LE”) motion for summary judgment, 

Bhelliom Enterprises Corp. (“Bhelliom”) attempted to slip in its own motion for summary 

judgment of infringement. This new motion was not only untimely, but in violation of this 

Court’s Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), limiting a party’s summary judgment motions to one (1), absent 

leave of Court. Bhelliom’s motion should be struck and LE should be awarded its costs and fees 

for the filing of this motion. 

II. ARGUMENT 

A. This Court Has Discretion to Strike Untimely Pleadings 

 It is well established that this Court has the discretion to strike untimely pleadings or 

other papers. Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 578-79 (6th Cir.2000) (upholding the exclusion 

of untimely expert-witness reports and affidavits). In Castleberry v. Neumann Law P.C., the 

court stated: 

Castleberry never moved for an extension of time, and he offers no explanation 

for his untimeliness. “Even a party proceeding pro se is not entitled to disregard 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nor is a party entitled to disregard the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court ....” 

2008 WL 5744179 at *5 (W.D.Mich. 2008)(quoting Krantz, Inc. v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 408 

F.Supp.2d 854, 865 (D.S.D. 2005) ; see also Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 492 

(6th Cir.2000) (district court properly disregarded evidence proffered after grant of summary 

judgment; “[a]lthough it may seem harsh to turn a blind eye to the ... belated proffer of evidence, 

that is the price to be paid by litigants who do not comply with the rules ....”) 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 3003
2 

 The source of this Court's discretion in this matter is Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, which grants 

district courts wide latitude to impose sanctions for failure to comply with their scheduling 

orders. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 

993, 998 (6th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, 464 (10th Cir. 1980) 

(broad powers of enforcement inure to a pretrial order limiting issues to be tried and evidence to 

be introduced). 

B. This Court Should Strike Bhelliom’s Untimely 

Summary Judgment Motion 

 The original Scheduling Order in this case provided that “dispositive motions shall be 

filed by January 7, 2011.” (Dkt. #21.) The parties later stipulated, and this Court ordered that 

date extended to January 25, 2011. (Dkt. #44.) On January 21, Bhelliom timely filed a Motion 

for Summary Judgment, which seeks dismissal of all LE’s claims. (Dkt. #46.) On January 25, 

LE timely filed two motions1

 for summary judgment, one pertaining to Bhelliom’s counterclaims 

(Dkt. #49) and affirmative defenses and one pertaining to LE’s claims. (Dkt. #52.) 

 On February 15, 2011, Bhelliom responded to LE’s Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Bhelliom’s Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses ((Dkt. #64). In addition to presenting 

arguments addressing LE’s Motion, Bhelliom moved for summary judgment of infringement of 

its trademark and presented a likelihood of confusion analysis2

. (Id., pp. 5-8.) 

 Bhelliom’s new motion was filed nearly three (3) weeks after the dispositive motion 

deadline and is thus untimely. Moreover, the motion is the second summary judgment motion 

filed by Bhelliom and thus exceeds the limit imposed by L.R. 7.1(b)(2). Bhelliom never sought 

 

1

 LE first obtained an Order from the Court allowing it to file more than one summary 

judgment motion in light of L.R. 7.1(b)(2). (Dkt. #56.) 

2

 LE never moved for summary judgment that there was no likelihood of confusion, thus 

this cannot be deemed a cross-motion. 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 3004
3 

leave, to file an untimely motion or a brief in excess of the limit and offers no explanation for 

flouting the rules. 

 This Court should strike the motion. Westrick v. Dow Corning Corp., 2008 WL 269068, 

(E.D. Ky. Jan. 29, 2008) (when plaintiff filed opposition to summary judgment motion about 

nineteen (19) days after the deadline established by local rules, court noted, “He has not 

explained his failure to file a timely response nor asked the court's permission to file an untimely 

response. Accordingly, the court need not consider the response at all.”). 

C. LE is Entitled to Its Costs and Attorney’ Fees 

 Bhelliom’s willful violations of the Court's January 7, 2011 Order (Dkt. #44) setting the 

deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions and L.R. 7.1(b)(2) warrants an award of 

LE’s fees and costs. 

 Fed R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) recites that “the court may issue just orders ... if a party or its 

attorney ... (C) fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order.” Additionally, Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(f)(2) requires that “the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the 

reasonable expenses – including attorney's fees – incurred because of any noncompliance with 

this rule, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an 

award of expenses unjust.” (emphasis added). 

 Bhelliom’s noncompliance with the scheduling order set by the Court was entirely 

without justification, and accordingly, LE should be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in filing this motion as stated in Rule 16(f)(2)3

. Pinero v. Corp Courts at Miami 

 

3

 LE can provide evidence of its costs and attorneys’ fees by declaration should this Court 

order that they are warranted. 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 3005
4 

Lakes, Inc., 2009 WL 1424173, *2 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2009) (awarding attorneys’ fees incurred 

in filing motion for failure to obey scheduling order). 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. 

 

 By: /s/ Thomas W. Cunningham 

 MARK A. CANTOR (P32661) 

 THOMAS W. CUNNINGHAM (P57899) 

 MARC LORELLI (P63156) 

 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor 

 Southfield, Michigan 48075 

 Tel. (248) 358-4400; Fax. (248) 358-3351 

 E-mail: mcantor@brookskushman.com 

 tcunningham@brookskushman.com 

 mlorelli@brookskushman.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Innovation Ventures 

Dated: March 7, 2011

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 3006
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on March 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Michigan using the ECF System which will 

send notification to the following registered participants of the ECF System as listed on the 

Court's Notice of Electronic Filing: Mark A. Cantor, Thomas W. Cunningham, Brian C. 

Doughty, James K. Thome, Marc Lorelli. 

 I also certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following 

non-participants in the ECF System: None. 

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.

 /s/Thomas W. Cunningham 

 MARK A. CANTOR (P32661) 

 THOMAS W. CUNNINGHAM (P57899) 

 MARC LORELLI (P63156) 

 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor 

 Southfield, Michigan 48075 

 (248) 358-4400 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Innovation Ventures 

2:09-cv-13783-LPZ-MJH Doc # 73 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 3007