Engle [ENJOINED] v. Plawecki et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JASON RICHARD ENGLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK J PLAWECKI, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-11544
Honorable Robert J. White
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF No. 41)
AND STRIKING ECF No. 40 FROM THE DOCKET
Plaintiff Jason Richard Engle moved to strike Defendants’1 “unauthorized
surreply (ECF No. 29)” from the docket. (ECF No. 40; ECF No. 41). ECF No. 29
is Defendants’ response to Engle’s motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, (ECF No. 24). Engle filed duplicative motions to strike on the docket,
one with a signature and one without. (ECF No. 40; ECF No. 41). The Court will
strike ECF No. 40 for lack of Engle’s signature but will consider ECF No. 41 on the
merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (requiring the court to strike an unsigned written
motion).
1 Defendants are Mark J Plawecki, Floyd Bunker, and the 20th District Court of
Dearborn Heights. (ECF No. 46, PageID.620).
Case 2:25-cv-11544-RJW-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Engle argued the Court should strike Defendants’ response (ECF No. 29)
because: (1) Defendants filed their response without prior leave of court in violation
of Local Rule 7.1(e)(1); (2) the “surreply” is too long and “unfairly burdens [Engle’s]
right to reply”; (3) the Court did not give Engle leave to respond; and (4) Defendants
cannot file a “surreply” on the grounds that Engle’s proposed amendment is futile.
(ECF No. 41, PageID.571). In their response to Engle’s motion to strike, Defendants
asserted that Engle’s motion misrepresented both the local rules and the nature of
ECF No. 29. (ECF No. 46, PageID.626).
The Court agrees with Defendants. First, ECF No. 29 is a response to a motion
for leave to amend a pleading, which is allowed under the local rules. See E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(c)(1) (“a respondent opposing a motion must file a response, including a
brief and supporting documents then available”). Engle also misplaced his reliance
on Local Rule 7.1(e)(1). Contrary to Engle’s claim, Local Rule 7.1(e)(1) sets forth
the standard briefing schedule, see E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(1), and says nothing about
moving for leave to amend. In fact, the language Engle claimed to quote from Rule
7.1(e)(1) does not appear anywhere in Local Rule 7.1.
Second, Defendants’ response brief is not overlong. See E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(d)(3)(A) (allotting twenty-five pages for response briefs). Although Defendants’
response in total is over twenty-five pages, the brief itself is not. See ECF No. 29.
The excess pages consist of exhibits, which Defendants are required to attach per
Case 2:25-cv-11544-RJW-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Local Rule 7.1(c)(1). Third, Engle does not need the Court’s leave to submit a reply
brief. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1)(A) (permitting movants to “file a reply brief” in
support of the motion). Fourth, Defendants are allowed to argue that amendment of
the pleading is futile in their response to Engle’s motion. See Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (listing “futility of amendment” as a reason to deny a motion
to amend a pleading). Thus, for all of the reasons listed above, the Court finds
Engle’s motions to strike meritless and will accordingly deny the motion.
* * *
For the reasons given, the Court ORDERS that the motion to strike
defendant’s unauthorized “surreply” (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that ECF No. 40 is stricken for lack of
Engle’s signature.
Dated: October 22, 2025 s/Robert J. White
Robert J. White
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-11544-RJW-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 3 of 3