Systematic Recycling, LLC v. Detroit, City of

Filing 80

ORDER denying 79 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SYSTEMATIC RECYCLING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number 09-11430
Honorable David M. Lawson

CITY OF DETROIT and WILLA J.
WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
January 24, 2013 opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The
plaintiff contends that (1) the Court erred in finding that the City had the authority under its zoning
ordinance to revoke the plaintiff’s conditional land use grant, (2) the Court was misled by the City’s
factual assertion that it had no inappropriate ex parte contact with the administrative hearing officer
through law clerk Nathaniel Gallegos, and (3) the Court erred in finding as a matter of law that the
plaintiff could not make out a claim for violation of its rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The
Court finds that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any palpable defect by which the Court was
misled in reaching its ruling on the motions for summary judgment, and it therefore will deny the
motion for reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1) when the
moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the parties, and (3) that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A
“palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep’t
of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted).

“Generally . . . the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present
the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
Here the plaintiff seeks merely to relitigate the same issues that were already presented to
and decided by the Court. In its opinion and order on the motion for summary judgment, the Court
explained in detail the legal basis of its finding that the plain language of the City’s zoning
ordinance granted ample authority to revoke the conditional land use grant. [dkt. #77] at 17-18.
Likewise, the Court explained that the plaintiff had offered no record facts to support its contention
that the law clerk in question was employed by the City Law Department. The plaintiff attached as
an exhibit to its motion for reconsideration the LinkedIn.com profile of Nathaniel Gallegos, which
states that he was a “Law Clerk” for the “City of Detroit.” This exhibit does not establish, as the
plaintiff claims, that Mr. Gallegos worked for the Law Department; it only suggests that he worked
as a law clerk for some organ of the City. Nothing in the record supports the finding that the
memorandum submitted to the hearing officer was prepared by a Law Department employee, or that
it represented inappropriate ex parte contact between the Law Department and the hearing officer.
Finally, the Court has twice rejected the plaintiff’s equal protection claims, both in its recent opinion
and order and in its prior opinion and order denying the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. The
present motion provides no substantial factual or legal basis for reconsidering those rulings. The
plaintiff has not identified any palpable defect in either the factual record or the legal authority relied
upon by the Court in its opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
and the motion therefore must be denied.

-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [dkt. #79] is
DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: February 15, 2013

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on February 15, 2013.
s/Shawntel Jackson
SHAWNTEL JACKSON

-3-