marking lack-of-viability, the court chose June 25, 2013, the date the City provided plaintiffs with Sanderhoffs expert report. Suddenly, in the district court’s view, the Sanderoff report became a be-all, end-all curtain-closer against the plaintiffs’ claims. Nowhere did the district court mention or distinguish its earlier-stated views that the Sanderoff report had merely “poked holes” in the plaintiffs allegations by showing that Hispanics had fared well in earlier city elections. Appellant’s App. vol. II at 201. Nowhere did the district court consider the City’s failure ever to seek — let alone win — a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, even when armed with the supposedly unchallengeable Sanderoff report. Cf. In re Ruben, 825 F.2d 977, 988 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). I am wary of the district court’s and
holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding that monetary sanction was not supportable as a compensatory civil contempt sanction because there was no proof of the amount of loss holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction holding sanction included in final judgment appealable holding that the denial of the motions for summary judgment precludes a sanction on the ground that the claims against them were legally insufficient and that a sanction is generally improper where a successful motion could have avoided any additional legal expenses by defendants emphasis in original