Detroit, City of v. Comcast of Detroit

Filing 84

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CITY OF DETROIT,
Plaintiff,

Case Number 10-12427
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN and COMCAST OF
DETROIT,
Defendants,
and
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Intervenor.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COMCAST’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 10, 2012, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties’
motions for summary judgment and requiring additional briefing. In that order, the Court
determined that there was no franchise agreement in place between the City of Detroit and Comcast
of Detroit, and that under Michigan Supreme Court precedent, defendant Comcast was a trespasser,
rather than a holdover tenant. The Court ordered additional briefing on the appropriate remedy.
On July 24, 2012, defendant Comcast of Detroit filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s order. Defendant Comcast argues that no party addressed the question of whether Comcast
should be considered a trespasser, that Comcast cannot be a trespasser because it has continued to
operate with the consent of the City of Detroit, and that Comcast possesses a franchise to continue
operating its cable system in the City of Detroit under either the 2007 or 1985 agreement.

Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(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(g)(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). However,
motions for reconsideration should not be granted when they “merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3).
Defendant Comcast first argues that the Court should reconsider the portion of its order
deeming defendant Comcast a trespasser on the basis that neither party advanced this argument. But
the parties’ failure to brief this issue when there is Michigan Supreme Court authority directly
addressing it is not grounds to reconsider the Court’s order. The Court’s ruling logically flowed
from the authority set forth by the Michigan Supreme Court, which the parties ignored at their peril.
Defendant Comcast’s remaining arguments merely seek to raise issues already considered and
decided by the Court. The parties may advance arguments regarding the consequences of defendant
Comcast’s trespasser status in the supplemental briefing ordered by the Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Comcast’s motion for reconsideration [dkt.
#77] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: August 7, 2012

-2-

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 August 7, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-3-