Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International Inc. et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Denying 69 Second MOTION for Reconsideration re 67 Memorandum Opinion & Order - Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (JJoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-10394
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

v.
NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL INC.,
AUTO LIGHTHOUSE PLUS LLC, and
UNITED COMMERCE CENTERS, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [69]
In a lengthy opinion and order, this Court concluded that it could, consistent with due
process, exercise personal jurisdiction over all claims against all Defendants in this action. See
generally Ford Global Techs., LLC v. New World Int’l Inc., No. 2:15-CV-10394, 2016 WL
3349041 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2016). Defendants asked this Court to reconsider that conclusion
and so this Court issued another opinion further explaining the basis for its jurisdictional ruling.
Ford Global Techs., LLC v. New World Int’l Inc., No. 2:15-CV-10394, 2016 WL 3902945 (E.D.
Mich. July 19, 2016).
Defendants now ask the Court to reconsider that order. (R. 69.) But Defendants cite no
legal authority permitting a second motion for reconsideration. And there is case law to the
contrary. See Mann v. Agnello, No. 07-CV-12857, 2008 WL 2094664, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May
16, 2008) (“[T]he court rules do not provide for successive motions for reconsideration.”); Serv.
Source, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc., No. 02-CV-73361-DT, 2005 WL 6764333, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Nov. 28, 2005) (“E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g) [now 7.1(h)] does not provide for successive motions for

reconsideration.”); cf. Scott v. Stone, No. 03-CV-75123, 2006 WL 1046975, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Apr. 17, 2006) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize successive motions for
reconsideration or successive motions to alter or amend judgment.”). The Court has already
thoroughly considered the merits underlying Defendants’ jurisdiction motion. At some point,
there must be an end to this process.
Defendants’ motion to reconsider this Court’s order denying its motion for
reconsideration is thus DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 2, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys
and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on August 2, 2016.
s/Jane Johnson
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

2