Jewel v. UAW International
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 AS TO ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS CLAIM 11 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-cv-12322
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UAW INTERNATIONAL and UAW LOCAL 7,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEVEN WHALEN
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION  AS TO ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM 
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” . 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.
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 . This Court
dismissed the action on August 31, 2015 as barred by res judicata. See Dkt. No. 11. On
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)).
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.
Seeing no palpable defect in the Court’s prior Order, the Motion fails. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d at
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2015
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
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?