Defendants' motion for summary judgment does not, in any way, point to the absence of support for any essential element of plaintiff’s case. The party seeking summary judgment carries the burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Only if the moving party produces information establishing that no factual dispute exists will the burden shift to the nonmoving party to show that there is indeed a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. In fact, Defendants have merely referenced a prior pleading. The issues on summary judgment are not those set forth in the pleadings but are those presented by the materials submitted in support of the summary judgment motion. Yates v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 928 F.2d 199, 202 (6th Cir. 1991); Marsh v. Austin-Fort Worth Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 744 F.2d 1077, 1079 n.4 (5th Cir. 1984). No materials have been submitted in support of Defendants' summary judgment motion. Rule 56(c) expressly requires that the party moving for summary judgment make an initial showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. No material has been submitted in support of Defendants' summary judgment motion, therefore Defendants have failed to shift the burden to the Plaintiff making their motion for summary judgment insufficient and improperly supported. Furthermore, the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants violates Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 11(a) in that it is not signed "in the attorney's individual name". The signature is unidentified and not that of either attorney's name listed as filing the motion. The signature furthermore is signed 'for' the attorneys listed and cannot therefore be 'in the attorney's individual name'. Therefore, Plaintiff demands award of summary judgment on the Defendants' frivilous motion and any such further relief as the court deems appropriate, as a matter of law.