Memminger v. O'Meara

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEONARD MEMMINGER,
Case No. 11-14551
Plaintiff,
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
v
CORBETT EDGE O’MEARA,
Defendant.
________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 23, 2012, the Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s case for lack of
federal jurisdiction [dkt 10]. On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court via
the Electronic Court Filing system. Plaintiff’s letter disputes the Court’s finding that federal
jurisdiction in this case was not established, contending that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 in this case.

As such the Court will construe Plaintiff’s letter as a Motion for

Reconsideration. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2), a response
to Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is not permitted. The Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in Plaintiff’s motion such that the decision process would
not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2),
and 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the brief submitted. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration, stating that “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.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). The same
subsection further states, “[t]he movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which

1

the court and the parties . . . have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result
in a different disposition of the case.” Id. A defect is palpable when it is “obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Chrysler Realty Co., LLC v. Design Forum Architects, Inc.,
544 F.Supp. 2d 609, 618 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration fails to state a palpable defect by which the Court
has been misled. Rather, Plaintiffs’ motion presents issues that the Court has already ruled upon.
See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Further, the motion indicates only Plaintiffs’ disagreement with
the Court’s ruling. Such disagreement is not a proper premise on which to base a motion for
reconsideration. See, e.g., Simmons v. Caruso, No. 08-cv-14546, 2009 WL 1506851, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. May 28, 2009); Cowan v. Stovall, No. 2:06-CV-13846, 2008 WL 4998267, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 21, 2008).
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to adequately support his motion, the Court will
nevertheless briefly address Plaintiff’s argument. Although Plaintiff claims that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, he fails to address the fact that the parties are both residents of
Michigan—thereby destroying diversity. As to Plaintiff’s reliance on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
Court finds that Defendant is not a state actor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiff hired
Defendant to represent Plaintiff in the criminal matter. As such, federal jurisdiction is lacking
and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 1, 2012
s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

2