MY Imagination, LLC v. M.Z. Berger & Co., Inc. et al

Filing 109

ORDER DENYING 100 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MY IMAGINATION, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-13321

M.Z. BERGER & CO., INC., a foreign
corporation; M.Z. BERGER & CO.,
INC., d/b/a MZB INK; and MZB
IMAGINATION, LLC, a New York
limited liability company,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This is a breach of contract case.
On January 30, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The ruling was memorialized in the:


Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, (Doc. 68), Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, (Doc. 70), and Denying Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine Regarding
Applicable Law, (Doc. 66), and for Determination of Damages Available,
(Doc. 67), (Doc. 97)

On February 27, 2017, the plaintiff filed a:


Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Rule 59(e) or for Relief from a
Final Judgment or Order under Rule 60(b), (Doc. 100)

On March 7, 2017, the Court entered an:


Order Construing Motion and Directing Response, (Doc. 104)

The Court construed the motion as one for rehearing or reconsideration under
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h) and, although untimely, agreed to consider it. (Doc. 104).
Defendants have responded, (Doc. 106), and plaintiff has replied, (Doc. 108).
Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) which provides
in relevant part:
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.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
Plaintiff essentially repeats the legal arguments that were rejected in the Court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order of January 30, 2017. (Doc. 97). This is not a basis
for rehearing or reconsideration.
The motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 28, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

2