Thomas v. Lighthouse of Oakland et al

Filing 117

ORDER Denying 113 Plaintiff's for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDALL THOMAS
Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: 12-cv-15494

v.

HON. VICTORIA ROBERTS

LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND,
LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, GREG STERNS,
and JOHN ZIRALDO
Defendants.
_________________________________ /
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. #113)
I.

INTRODUCTION
On May 4, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Order granted Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment except on Thomas’ racial harassment claims against Lighthouse of
Oakland (“LOO”) and Lighthouse Community Development (“LCD”) under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“Elliott-Larsen”).
On May 18, 2016, Thomas filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to
reinstate his Elliott-Larsen claim against Defendant Greg Sterns (“Sterns”).
Thomas’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Thomas seeks reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), which states:
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.

“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 re-litigate issues already decided.” Id. 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).
III.

DISCUSSION

Thomas says his Elliott-Larsen claim against Sterns should proceed. He points to
a provision of Elliott-Larsen, MCL 37.2103(g), which defines individuals and
organizations covered under the act. Thomas directs the Court to MCL 37.2201(a) for
the proposition that Sterns is an employer under Elliott-Larsen. Thomas also directs the
Court to Cotton v. Banks, where the Michigan Court of Appeals found that a defendant
could be individually liable for his alleged acts of harassment. 872 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. App.
2015). These arguments are moot and attempt to re-hash issues already decided.

2

Thomas says his First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges an Elliott-Larsen
racial harassment claim against Sterns. It does indeed. But, the Complaint that now
controls this litigation is Thomas’ Second Amended Complaint. That Complaint was
submitted after a scheduling conference for the sole purpose of “clearing-up” which
counts would be brought against which defendants. Sterns correctly points out in his
response to Thomas’ Motion for Reconsideration that in Thomas’ Second Amended
Complaint, Thomas does not include any mention of an Elliott-Larsen racial harassment
claim against him.
The Court agrees that its May 4, 2016 Order does not explicitly grant or deny
Sterns’ Motion For Summary Judgment on Thomas’ Elliott-Larsen harassment claims.
The Order omitted such language because Thomas’ alleged Elliott-Larsen claim against
Sterns does not exist in his Second Amended Complaint and was considered
abandoned.
Thomas’ Second Amended Complaint governs this litigation. To reinstate
Thomas’ Elliott-Larsen claim against Sterns would be to re-litigate issues not only
determined at Summary Judgment, but issues that were disposed of after discovery
closed.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Thomas’ Motion For Reconsideration is DENIED.

3

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 26, 2016
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
May 26, 2016.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

4