Jewel v. UAW International

Filing 14


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DORRINUS JEWEL, Case No. 15-cv-12322 Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN v. UAW INTERNATIONAL and UAW LOCAL 7, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN Defendants. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [13] AS TO ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM [11] I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Dorrinus Jewel, filing pro se, commenced the instant action against Defendants, UAW International and UAW Local 7, on June 26, 2015. See Dkt. No. 1. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Reconsideration Letter” [13]. The Court interprets Plaintiff’s filing to be a Motion for Reconsideration, and shall refer to it as such herein. The Court has had an opportunity to thoroughly examine this matter. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. II. BACKGROUND The factual background for this Motion is brief. In October of 2013, Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants, as well as Chrysler Group, LLC. See Jewel v. Chrysler, LLC, 2014 WL 764660 (E.D. Mich. February 25, 2014). That action was dismissed in 2014 for failure to state a claim. Id. at *8. A little over a year later, on June 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants again. Defendants moved to dismiss the action on July 20, 2015 [6]. This Court dismissed the action on August 31, 2015 as barred by res judicata. See Dkt. No. 11. On -1- September 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed this Motion. Plaintiff requests this Court “reject [its] decision and reconsider.” Dkt. No. 13 at 3, Pg. ID No. 172. III. LEGAL STANDARD Motions for Reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which provides: [M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (quoting United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). IV. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s Motion fails to point to a single defect in this Court’s decision to grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. This Court granted the Defendants’ Motion because Plaintiff’s claim was barred by res judicata. See Dkt. No. 11. Instead of addressing the elements of res judicata, Plaintiff’s Motion puts forward the same issues already previously brought before this Court. See Dkt. No. 13. For example, Plaintiff argues that 1) the UAW failed to provide “proper representation” and 2) “failed to intervene [and] enforce the Workers Contracts.” See Dkt. No. 13 at 2. Even if these allegations are true, and it very well may be that they are, it does not change the fact that these claims needed to be in the Plaintiff’s original action in October of 2013 in order to move forward. See Dkt. No. 11 at 4-6, Pg. ID No. 166-168. This is an issue that is separate and removed from the substance of Plaintiff’s claim. Regardless of how meritorious Plaintiff’s case may be, the Court may not unilaterally disregard established judicial doctrine. -2- Seeing no palpable defect in the Court’s prior Order, the Motion fails. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d at 684. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2015 Detroit, MI /s/Gershwin A Drain HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Court Judge -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?