Hill v. Detroit, City of et al
ORDER granting 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Marianne O. Battani. (BThe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case Number: 11-10413
CITY OF DETROIT, RONALD HOPP,
DERON DOTSON, RONALD OWEN,
JOSEPH HARRIS, in their individual and
HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COURT'S JUNE 23, 2011 ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration of Court's June 23, 2011
'Order for Extension of Summons For Defendants Owen and Hopp and Substitute Service
for Defendants Owen and Hopp, Only.'" (Doc. 16). For the reasons that follow, the motion
is GRANTED to the extent the Court finds that Plaintiff served Defendant Harris pursuant
to Rule 4(e)(2)(B) on June 7, 2011.
On June 23, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Emergency
Ex-Parte Motion for Substituted Service and Extension of Summons for Defendants Harris,
Owen and Hopp.
Specifically, the Court extended the Summonses for
Defendants Owen and Hopp until July 30, 2011 and allowed Plaintiff to serve Owen and
Hopp by means of substituted service by serving the City of Detroit, the City of Detroit Law
Department, and the front desk officer at Detroit Police Headquarters. The Order was
silent on Plaintiff's request for an extension of summons or substituted service as to
Defendant Harris. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 23 Order
as it relates to Defendant Harris. (Doc. 16).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will not grant a motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same
issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. E.D. Mich.
L.R. 7.1(g)(3). To obtain the relief requested, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a
"palpable defect" by which the court and the parties have been misled and (2) demonstrate
that “correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Id.; see also
Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir.
2004). A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain. Armstrong v. Eagle Rock Entertainment, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
In the subject motion, Plaintiff explains she attempted to serve Defendant Harris
personally on June 7, 2011, one day after she filed the emergency ex-parte motion and one
day before the Harris Summons expired. Upon arriving at Defendant Harris's last know
address which was provided by Defendant City of Detroit (Doc. 6 Ex. D) and confirmed by
a public record search (Id. Ex. F), Plaintiff's process server spoke with a man who came
to the door and stated that Joseph Harris was in Georgia and would be gone for several
months. (Id. Ex. E). The process server left the Summons and Complaint with the man he
spoke with at the home. (Id.). Based on this event, Plaintiff asks the Court to modify the
June 23 Order in two ways: (1) extend the Harris Summons by a period of sixty days and
(2) permit substituted service as it did with Defendants Owen and Hopp or find that Plaintiff
has served Harris pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B).
Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds that Plaintiff has served
Defendant Harris under Rule 4(e)(2)(B). Rule 4(e)(2)(B) permits service of process to be
made upon an individual by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the
individual's "dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion
who resides there." A plaintiff need not show an inability to obtain service by personal
delivery to the defendant before serving under Rule 4(e)(2)(B). See 4A WRIGHT, MILLER &
MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1096 (3d ed. 2011). Plaintiff satisfied the
service requirements under Rule 4(e)(2)(B) by leaving a copy of the summons and
complaint with a person of suitable age and discretion residing at Harris's last known
address. (Doc. 6 Ex. E). Plaintiff's requests for an extension of the Harris Summons or
substituted service are moot because service was achieved on June 7, 2011.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's June
23, 2011 Order is GRANTED to the extent the Court finds that Plaintiff served Defendant
Harris pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2)(B) on June 7, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marianne O. Battani
MARIANNE O. BATTANI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 12, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon counsel of record on this date by ordinary
mail and/or electronic filing.
s/Bernadette M. Thebolt
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?