International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America et al v. Honeywell International Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Ciesla, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE,
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 11-cv-14036
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiffs International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), Thomas Bode, Bruce Eaton, William Burns,
Peter Antonellis, and Larry Preston filed this class action against Defendant
Honeywell International, Inc. on September 25, 2011. UAW filed a Motion to
Dismiss Honeywell’s Amended Counterclaim on April 24, 2012 and this Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion on March 28, 2013. This timely Motion
for Reconsideration followed. Specifically, UAW requests that the Court dismiss
Honeywell’s implied warranty of authority state law tort claim because it is based on
a legal opinion. UAW further argues that the claim is inadequately plead and

preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. For the reasons
stated below, UAW’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
A party may seek reconsideration of a judgment or order within 14 days of
entry of that judgment or order. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). A response or hearing on
the motion for reconsideration is impermissible unless the Court orders otherwise. Id.
at (h)(2). The Court may properly grant a motion for reconsideration if the movant
satisfactorily shows that: (1) the existence of a palpable defect that misled the parties
and the Court; and (2) the correction of which would result in a different disposition
of the case. Id. at (h)(3). The Court will not grant a motion for reconsideration “that
merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication.” Id. A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874
(E.D. Mich. 2004). UAW has filed a timely request for reconsideration of the Court’s
March 28, 2013 Order. This matter does not require a hearing nor a response.
The Court finds that UAW has not satisfied the standard for reconsideration
because it has not raised any significant arguments that were not already addressed by
this Court explicitly or implicitly in its March 28, 2013 Order. UAW represents the
same arguments that were previously before the Court. This is insufficient to meet the
high burden of demonstrating the existence of a palpable defect that mislead the Court

2

or that correction of such a defect would necessarily result in a different disposition
of this case. Therefore, UAW’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 46,
filed April 11, 2013] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: August 6, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on August 6, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3