Contract Design Group, Incorporated et al v. Wayne State University et al

Filing 151

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 149 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Monda, H)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CONTRACT DESIGN GROUP, INC., and ROBERT MURRAY, Plaintiffs, Case No: 10-14702 v. Hon. Victoria A. Roberts WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, THE WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, JAMES R. SEARS, JOAN M. GOSSMAN, and JOHN L. DAVIS, Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 149) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Ruling That the March 15, 2010 Letter From the State Of Michigan Wage & Hour Division was Inadmissible, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h). Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review: Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the 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. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). 1 Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain." Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). "It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration." Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling on a motion, the Court will not provide a party with an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided." Id. In the June 19, 2013 hearing on motions in limine, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to take judicial notice that the Wage and Hour Division of the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth determined in a letter that the Prevailing Wage and Projects Act, P.A. 166 of 1965 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ engagement of Raymond Williams d/b/a/ Williams Custom Carpet on Wayne State University’s construction project. The Court further ruled that the letter was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. However, the admissibility of the letter was not at issue in a motion before the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court’s refusal to take judicial notice stands; but, its ruling on the admissibility of the letter is vacated. Defendants may present their admissibility objection at trial. IT IS ORDERED. S/Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge Dated: June 21, 2013 2 The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 21, 2013. S/Carol A. Pinegar Deputy Clerk 3

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?