Bank of the Ozarks v. Perfect Health Skin and Body Center PLLC et al

Filing 62

ORDER Granting in Part Defendant's 61 Motion for Reconsideration re 60 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. (Reply due by 5/31/2019 Re 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. ) Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
BANK OF THE OZARKS,
Case No.: 1:18-cv-11870-TLL-PTM
Plaintiff,

Hon. Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

v.
PERFECT HEALTH SKIN
AND BODY CENTER PLLC, and
THEODORE BASH, an individual,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Defendant Bash’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
denying his motion for summary judgment in part. ECF No. 60. A full factual and procedural
history can be found in that order.
I.
Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), a party can file a motion for
reconsideration of a previous order but must do so within fourteen days. A motion for
reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows: “(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect
misled the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.” Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34
(E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is “obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. at 734 (citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices,
Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[T]he Court will not grant motions for
rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). See also Bowens v. Terris,
2015 WL 3441531, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2015).
II.
Defendant argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court ruled on his motion
before he had a chance to file his reply brief. Indeed, the Court ruled on the motion on May 24,
and Defendant’s reply brief was not due until May 28. Defendant will be permitted to file a reply
brief.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 61,
is GRANTED in part.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s reply brief is due on May 31, 2019.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: May 28, 2019

-2-