Christenson et al v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 41 plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 42 defendants' Motion for Leave to File. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES CHRISTENSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-14441
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
JAMES OSTERHOUT, and
TIMOTHY TOMLINSON,
Defendants.
____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DOC. 41)
AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE (DOC. 42)
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to
Reconsider the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to
Amend/Correct a Judgment. (Doc. 39). This is plaintiffs’ second motion
regarding the Court’s Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. (Doc. 31).
Motions for Reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. Local Rule
7.1(h). “A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant
demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have
been misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a
correction thereof.” Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (E.D.

-1-

Mich. 2004) (internal citations omitted). “A motion for reconsideration
which merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication, shall be denied.” Id. (internal
citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider argues that they have been deprived
of their right to occupy their red-tagged property, and that this deprivation
constitutes an injury. The Court has ruled on this issue, both expressly,
(Doc. 39 at PageID 322-23), and by implication, (Doc. 31 at PageID 26364) (recognizing that plaintiffs’ did not own the home when it was redtagged on July 17, 2014, and therefore, the red-tag did not constitute an
injury to plaintiff). As such, plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Defendants’ previously moved for leave to file a response to plaintiff’s
motion. (Doc. 42). This motion is now DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 22, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-2-