Comerica Bank v. Esshaki, 2:17-cv-11019

Comerica Bank sued multiple defendants on March 30, 2017 to collect on four loans and related guaranties alleged to be in default.
The Court’s scheduling order set close of fact discovery for Jan. 19, 2018 and expert discovery for Feb. 19, 2018, and directed summary judgment motions be filed after discovery absent extraordinary circumstances.
Three days after the scheduling order, Comerica filed a motion for summary judgment; defendants moved to strike and opposed, and Comerica sought leave to file that premature motion.
Comerica argued defendants admitted execution of notes/guaranties and nonpayment, so summary judgment should be entered; defendants denied that they are in default on all obligations and asserted affirmative defenses.
Comerica also raised a concern that defendants might shield assets via Michigan’s Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act, pointing to a 2012 transfer of the Esshakis’ home; the Act, however, only applies to transfers after March 8, 2017.
The Court found factual gaps (amounts owed, timing of defaults, possible post-2017 transfers, missing loan-history exhibits) and concluded discovery is necessary before deciding summary judgment; it denied leave and denied summary judgment without prejudice, amended the schedule for expedited discovery, and denied as moot the motion to strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timing of summary judgment	SJ should be decided now because defendants admitted signing notes and ceased payments	SJ is premature; discovery needed to contest amounts, defaults, defenses	Court denied leave and denied SJ without prejudice—summary judgment premature absent extraordinary circumstances
Need for discovery before SJ	Minimal: admissions suffice; no more discovery needed	Discovery required to verify amounts, default timing, and defenses	Court held some discovery is warranted and must occur before SJ consideration
Effect of defendants’ pleadings/admissions	Defendants admitted signature and nonpayment so liability is established	Denials of default and affirmative defenses remain; lack of specific admissions on amounts	Court: admissions do not eliminate factual disputes; missing loan-history exhibits further preclude ruling now
Risk of fraudulent asset transfers	Delay will allow post-judgment asset shielding via Michigan Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act; immediate SJ prevents that	Alleged transfers cited occurred in 2012 (pre‑Act); no evidence of post‑2017 transfers; concerns speculative	Court: rejected this as a basis to bypass discovery because (1) cited transfer predated the statute and (2) plaintiff provided no specific evidence of post‑2017 transfers

Plott v. Gen. Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190 (6th Cir.) (trial court must afford adequate time for discovery before ruling on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and consideration of evidence)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden)
Vance By & Through Hammons v. United States, 90 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir.) (reversed summary judgment where no discovery occurred before motion)
Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713 (6th Cir.) (general or conclusory assertions of need for discovery may be insufficient)
Schmidt v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 859 (E.D. Mich.) (motions are not pleadings under Rule 12(f))