Knudson v. M/V American Spirit et al

Filing 142

ORDER denying defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 141 and denying defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment 138 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-CV-14854
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
M/V AMERICAN SPIRIT, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 141] AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’
CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 138]
This matter has come before the court on defendants American
Steamship Company’s and Liberty Steamship Company’s motion for
reconsideration of this court’s January 31, 2019 opinion and order granting
plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings (ECF No.
140). For the reasons stated below, defendants’ 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
-1-

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.
Defendants submit two palpable errors in their motion for
reconsideration. First is that the court failed to adequately address
defendants’ federal labor law arguments regarding whether defendants
were legally able to pay plaintiff more than $8 a day in maintenance when
that was the amount set in the Terms and Conditions. In fact, the court
considered all of defendants’ arguments in concluding that plaintiff was not
covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a union.
Thus, by implication, the court did not accept defendants’ argument that
federal labor law prevented them from paying a reasonable rate of
maintenance to plaintiff when union workers would have been bound by the
rate set by the Terms and Conditions. In finding that plaintiff can seek
punitive damages, the court has not foreclosed defendants from arguing
that punitive damages are inappropriate because defendants believed at
the time they were bound by law to pay the contractually set amount.
Second, defendants argue that the court failed to address their
request for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages
component of plaintiff’s maintenance and cure claim. Indeed, defendants

-2-

did style their pleading as a response to plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment and cross-motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF
No. 138) In granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the
court concluded that the $8 a day maintenance rate was unenforceable
and that plaintiff could seek punitive damages for his maintenance claim,
limited to the two-year period beginning immediately following his accident
and ending when defendants began paying plaintiff $45 a day. (Order,
Jan. 17, 2019, ECF No. 140) By implication, the court consequently
denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment seeking a
declaration that the contracted for maintenance rate was enforceable. The
court will correct the record, but notes that this does not result in a different
disposition of the case. Now, therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ cross-motion for partial
summary judgment is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: February 26, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
February 26, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-4-