Knudson v. M/V American Spirit et al

Filing 102

ORDER denying 100 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 101 Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and to stay proceedings pending appeal. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY TODD KNUDSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-14854
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
M/V AMERICAN SPIRIT, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 100] AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL [DOC. 101]
This matter has come before the court on defendants American
Steamship Company’s and Liberty Steamship Company’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
and of its denial of plaintiff’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal
and request for stay [doc. 100] and motion for certification of interlocutory
appeal, to amend order to include the required permission to appeal, and to
stay proceedings pending appeal [doc. 101].
In its October 24, 2017 Order, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, finding that plaintiff may seek punitive damages for

-1-

personal injuries in his unseaworthiness claim against defendants. The
court declined to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal. [Doc. 99]
The court denies both of defendants’ motions. The court will not
grant a motion for reconsideration that “merely present[s] the same issues
ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.”
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). Defendants have not presented any new issues
other than those already ruled on by the court, nor does anything in
defendants’ motions persuade the court that it ruled in error on either issue.
This case was filed three years ago and extensive discovery and
litigation have already taken place. Of course, at trial, the punitive
damages issue will require the presentation and consideration of factual
and expert testimony. This is no different than what is required for the
other issues that will be submitted to the jury. This is simply not a case
where an immediate appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation.
See Krause v. Bd. Of County Rd. Comm’rs, 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th Cir.
1966). If the Sixth Circuit or United States Supreme Court ultimately
determine that punitive damages are not recoverable on a claim of
unseaworthiness, any award of such damages resulting in this case would
be overturned. However, the court concludes that the granting of an
interlocutory appeal and corresponding stay in this case would not
-2-

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, and is not
warranted.
Now, therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for
certification of interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings pending appeal
is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: November 16, 2017
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
November 16, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-