Legal Opinion

Kundrat v. Halloran

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided May 29, 2001No. CIV. 00-40405PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

GADOLA, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 [docket entry 7]. Because discovery has not closed, and the Court’s general policy is not to adjudicate motions for summary judgment before the close of discovery, see, e.g., Garrish v. UAW, 133 F.Supp.2d 959, 966 (E.D.Mich.2001), the Court will deny without prejudice Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), the Court concludes that a hearing would not aid in the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. QQC, INC. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
  2. Kundrat v. HalloranDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2002
  3. Gervin v. AndrewsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API