Spencer et al v. DTE Energy Company et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 115 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STEWART SPENCER and SHANNON SPENCER, Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-11421 Hon. Gerald E. Rosen - and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, Intervening Plaintiff, v. DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on January 31, 2017 PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge In an opinion and order issued on January 17, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Through a motion filed on January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling. Under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of this District, this Court ordinarily “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.” This principle controls the disposition of the present motion, in which Plaintiffs contend that their claims against Defendant DTE rested solely on DTE’s status as owner/general contractor, but that the Court nonetheless (i) analyzed these claims under the standards of premises liability, and (ii) “erroneously held there can be only one cause of action against a property owner” such as DTE, thereby limiting Plaintiffs to a premises liability theory of recovery “to the exclusion of” their owner/contractor claim. (Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, Br. in Support at 1.) This argument cannot be squared with the plain language of the Court’s January 17 ruling. In this opinion, the Court expressly “recognized that a claim under a premises liability theory does not preclude a separate claim grounded on an independent theory of liability based on the defendant’s conduct.” (1/17/2017 Opinion at 18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).) Nonetheless, the Court found that the record in this case supported only the former theory of recovery, and that this was so despite “the absence of claims or allegations in 2 [Plaintiffs’] complaint indicating that [they were] pursuing a theory of premises liability.” (Id. at 14, 19-20.) Plaintiffs’ bare disagreement with these rulings does not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s January 17, 2017 opinion and order. Accordingly, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ January 30, 2017 motion for reconsideration (docket #115) is DENIED. s/Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge Dated: January 31, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 31, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Julie Owens Case Manager, (313) 234-5135 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?