Rosa Parks, deceased v. Laface Records

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0200n.06
No. 19-2122
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ROSA PARKS, deceased,
Plaintiff,
ELAINE STEEL, Personal Representative
of the Estate of Rosa Parks,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAFACE RECORDS, et al.,
Defendants,
GREGORY J. REED AND ASSOCIATES,
P.C.,
Movant-Appellant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
ORDER
BEFORE: NORRIS, DAUGHTREY, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is before us following a remand to the district court for purposes of
clarification, which the district court has provided. Gregory Reed had filed a motion in the district
court seeking to renew a judgment entered there in August 2007, mandating payment of litigation
costs to Reed as provided in a 2005 settlement agreement reached by the parties to the original
litigation. It was Reed’s position that he had never been paid the amount of $125,000 called for
in both the 2005 settlement agreement and the 2007 order by the district court. There was nothing
in the record before us to prove or disprove Reed’s allegation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 19-2122, Rosa Parks v. LaFace Records
-2-
On remand, the district court promptly convened a conference with the parties, augmented
the record, and—as it had earlier—denied Reed’s motion to renew the 2007 judgment as futile.
The record now establishes that on August 10, 2005, the district court approved the
allocation of $125,000 in costs to Reed, and that on August 25, 2005, he was issued a check for
that amount, plus an additional $91,299.33 in attorney’s fees. The check, made out to Gregory J.
Reed & Associates, P.C., was deposited on August 30, 2005. The district court correctly held that
Reed’s motion to renew was futile. Reed’s arguments on appeal to the contrary are meritless.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
__________________________________
Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

-- 2 of 2 --