Randolph v. Detroit Public Schools
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-13975
Honorable Denise Page Hood
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60 AND FED. R. CIV. P. 59 [#30]
Plaintiff filed this cause of action on November 11, 2015, alleging that he was
constructively discharged in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”). On March 22, 2017, the Court issued an Order that granted Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Relief from Final
Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). Dkt. No. 30.
The relevant facts regarding this case were set forth in the Court’s March 22,
2017 Order. The Court incorporates those facts by reference in this Order.
Although Plaintiff’s Motion is titled “Motion for Relief from Final Judgment
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59,” the Court finds that it is a
motion for reconsideration and treats it as one.
In order to obtain reconsideration of a particular matter, the party bringing the
motion for reconsideration must: (1) demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
Court and the parties have been misled; and (2) demonstrate that “correcting the
defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). See
also Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385
(6th Cir. 2004); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 44 F.Supp.2d 865,
866 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Kirkpatrick v. General Electric, 969 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D.
A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874 (E.D.Mich.
2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the disposition of the case would be
different if the palpable defect were cured. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Brown v.
Walgreens Income Protective Plan for Store Managers, No. 10-CV-14442, 2013 WL
1040530, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2013). “[T]he court 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.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to offer any new argument in his Motion for
Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s current arguments, like his arguments with respect to the
parties’ summary judgment motions, focus on statements that his mother was
admitted to the hospital with a serious medical condition. The undisputed evidence
presented shows that Plaintiff told Defendant’s Human Resources Service Technician
Andrea Davis that he needed leave to care for his mother who was seriously ill, but
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is plagued by the same deficiency as his prior
In support of his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that his mother
and her treating doctors would testify at trial regarding her serious medical
condition. But, Plaintiff never provided evidence that: (a) his mother has (or had)
cancer or systemic lupas; or (b) he cared for his mother at the hospital. Plaintiff did
not provide any such evidence to Defendant prior to filing the lawsuit, he did not
provide it during discovery, he did not submit such evidence at the summary
judgment stage, and he has not provided it in support of his Motion for
Reconsideration – even after the Court noted in the March 22, 2017 Order that
Plaintiff has continually failed to provide such evidence. In order to survive summary
judgment, Plaintiff had to submit such evidence before or at the summary judgment
stage to defeat a summary judgment motion. Merely stating that such evidence will
be presented at trial is not sufficient to survive a Rule 56 motion.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not request any information regarding his
mother’s alleged serious health condition. Plaintiff’s argument is erroneous – and it
was presented to the Court at the summary judgment stage. The Court considered and
analyzed that argument, and then the Court specifically addressed the argument in its
March 22, 2017 Order. See Dkt. No. 28, PgID 529-33. As Defendant’s argument
regarding this issue is nothing more than a “present[ation of] the same issues ruled
upon by the Court,” it is denied. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating
a palpable defect by which the Court was misled and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration
[Dkt. No. 30] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: May 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on May 31, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?