Bou-Assaly v. George P. Mann & Associates, P.C. et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 34 defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying notice of claims of appeal. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WESSAM BOU-ASSALY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-10007
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
GEORGE P. MANN & ASSOCIATES,
P.C., and GEORGE P. MANN,
Defendants.

___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORDER DENYING NOTICE OF CLAIMS OF APPEAL (DOC. 34)
Plaintiff Wessam Bou-Assaly brings two counts of attorney
malpractice. Count I is filed against George P. Mann & Associates, P.C.
and George P. Mann, hereafter the Mann defendants. Count II is filed
against Margolis Law P.C. and Laurence H. Margolis, hereafter the
Margolis defendants. The Margolis defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on
February 23, 2017. (Doc. 15). The Mann defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss on April 20, 2017. (Doc. 23). The Court issued an Order denying
both motions. (Doc. 27). The Mann defendants thereafter filed a “Notice of
Claim of Appeal,” asking the Court to permit the Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit to hear an interlocutory appeal on the Order Denying the
-1-

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 30). The Court denied the Mann defendants’
request. (Doc. 33). This matter is presently before the Court on the Mann
defendants Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying Notice of
Claims of Appeal regarding the Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. (Doc. 34).
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.
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).
The Mann defendants raise six arguments. None demonstrate a
palpable defect. Further, the Court previously ruled upon by each
argument. First, the Mann defendants’ argue that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20, the four defendants are not properly in the same complaint. The
Court’s Opinion Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 27), did not
explicitly address this issue, but rather, ruled by reasonable implication.
-2-

Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 775; E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Plaintiff asserts a
right to relief pursuant to Michigan’s fair share liability, a system that
generally replaced the state’s use of joint and several liability in tort cases.
The Court finds that this is sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1). The
Court has, however, expressly ruled on the Mann defendants remaining
arguments concerning liability and amount in controversy. (Doc. 27 at
PageID 308-14; Doc. 33 at PageID 363-64). The Mann defendants’ Motion
to Reconsider is, therefore, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 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 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-