Choon's Design LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc.

Filing 149

ORDER denying 146 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHOON’S DESIGN INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-10848
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER DENYING TRISTAR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART TRISTAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY [Doc. 146]
Defendant Tristar Products, Inc. (“Tristar”) filed a motion for summary judgment
of non-infringement and invalidity of Plaintiff Choon’s Design Inc.’s (“Choon’s”)
underlying patent claims. [Doc. 97]. On August 15, 2017, the Court entered an Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Tristar’s Motion (the “Order”). [Doc. 138].
Tristar now moves for reconsideration of the Order. [Doc. 146].
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review for a motion for
reconsideration:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not
grant motions for ... 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). 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.
Tristar raises three arguments in its motion for reconsideration. However, Tristar
fails to demonstrate a palpable defect the correction of which will result in a different
disposition of its motion for summary judgment.
Tristar’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 146] is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: September 8, 2017

2