Opinion ID: 2973254
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract Claim Against Rainbow Defendants

Text: The district court granted the Rainbow defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim on the basis that Plaintiff did not argue that claim in her response to the motion for summary judgment. On appeal Plaintiff does not question the propriety of granting summary judgment on an issue which has not been challenged, but only argues that she did oppose the Rainbow defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim. First, she cites a paragraph in her response which asserted that the Rainbow defendants had violated SCC’s rules pertaining to grades, evaluations, and termination. However, this discussion of Rainbow’s allegedly breaking the rules does not make any reference to a contractual duty established by the rules. Moreover, the discussion is part of a section in which Plaintiff is arguing that the Rainbow defendants acted in concert with the SCC defendants (in support of her conspiracy claim). The only other support for her argument that she urged the validity of her breach of contract claim is a citation to a portion of her “reply.” However, this document was actually a sur-reply which was not permitted by the local rules. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1. Nor does the record reflect that Plaintiff - 17 - No. 04-1924 McGee v. Schoolcraft Community College sought or was granted permission to file a sur-reply. This district court apparently paid no heed to this pleading. Plaintiff cannot rely on arguments she set forth in an impermissible pleading. Since Plaintiff has failed to effectively refute the district court’s conclusion that she “did not argue her breach of contract claim in her response to defendants’ motions for summary judgment,” there is no reason to overturn the district court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claim against the Rainbow defendants.