Hubbell v. FEDEX Smartpost Inc.,

Filing 104

ORDER denying 95 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHERYL HUBBELL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-13897
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
FEDEX SMARTPOST, INC.,
Defendant.
__________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 95)
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff Sheryl Hubbell’s
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order granting in part
and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment, costs, attorney’s
fees and interest. (Doc. 92). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration is DENIED.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides:
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
-1-

have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.
Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its decision to award
plaintiff $157,733.75 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff requests the Court
grant her the figure she initially requested. See (Doc. 76 at PageID
3). Plaintiff suggests that the Court should have awarded the
requested figure simply because defendant did not file a response in
opposition to this request. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs are not
entitled to the amount requested, but rather, a reasonable attorney’s
fees figure. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (“the court, in its discretion,
may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee”)
(emphasis added). The Court conducted a thorough analysis to
determine a reasonable fee for plaintiff’s attorneys based on their
work in this case.
In her motion to reconsider, plaintiff argues that her requested
fee is reasonable. Each of these arguments were previously raised in
plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment, costs, attorney’s fees and
interest. (Doc. 76). The Court considered and ruled on these
arguments in its March 20, 2018 Order. (Doc. 92). Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties

-2-

have been misled. As such, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2018
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
June 4, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-