Leaf v. Refn et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARTIN LEAF,
Plaintiff,

Case No: 16-12149
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
NICHOLAS WINDING REFN et al.
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. 59]
On June 20, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Leaf’s First Amended Complaint. The Court ruled from the bench and granted
Defendants’ motion to dismiss with Prejudice.
Martin Leaf (“Leaf”) moves for reconsideration of that order. [Doc. 58, PgID
2403].
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court’s standard for review of a motion for
reconsideration:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not
grant motions for ... reconsideration that merely present the same issues
ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.
The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the
motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are “obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp.
2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a
1

motion for reconsideration.” Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780
(E.D. Mich. 2010). “[A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling
on a motion, the Court will not provide a party with an opportunity to relitigate issues
already decided.” Id.
In his motion, Leaf rehashes the same arguments made in his motion papers
and during the hearing.
Leaf fails to demonstrate a palpable defect, or any error made by the Court,
which should change its ruling.
Leaf’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: July 18, 2017

2