Platinum Sports, Limited et al v. Detroit, City of et al
Filing
77
ORDER denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PLATINUM SPORTS LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 07-CV-12360 vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH THE CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants. _____________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 56] On March 20, 2008 this court entered an opinion and order clarifying its preliminary injunction ruling. Plaintiffs filed this motion for reconsideration on April 3, 2008. Plaintiffs specifically object to the court's holding that adult entertainers may still be required to show their adult identification cards upon demand, though they may not be required to surrender them. Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides: [M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. The court considered the broad severability clause in the Detroit City Code when it made its ruling. The court finds that plaintiffs' motion simply reiterates earlier arguments which have been previously considered and addressed. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. So ordered.
Dated: December 16, 2008 S/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on December 16, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Josephine Chaffee Deputy Clerk
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?