John R. Springs, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company
ORDER Denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)
Case 2:20-cv-11536-NGE-RSW ECF No. 33, PageID.1410 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JOHN R. SPRINGS, INC.,
Case No. 20-11536
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
This is an insurance coverage dispute. On January 22, 2021, the Court entered
an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel appraisal without prejudice, finding an
appraisal premature at this early juncture of the case.1 (ECF No. 31.) The matter is
now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 32.)
Under Rule 7.1(h) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a party
may file a motion for reconsideration within fourteen days after a court issues an order
to which the party objects. For the motion to succeed, the movant “must not only
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties . . . have been misled
but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.”
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A court generally will not grant a motion for reconsideration
In the same order, the Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order,
denied Defendant’s motion to compel without prejudice, and granted Defendant’s
motion to adjourn the scheduling order.
Case 2:20-cv-11536-NGE-RSW ECF No. 33, PageID.1411 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3
that “merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff insists it is not simply rehashing arguments previously made.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court was misled when Defendant cited to Cox v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 19-12235, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225171 (E.D. Mich. Nov.
20, 2019), rather than a subsequent order issued in the same case, Cox v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., No. 19-12235, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66861 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16,
2020), which Plaintiff believes supports its position. However, Plaintiff raised this
precise point in the reply brief it filed in support of its original motion. (See ECF No. 16,
PgID 992.) Yet, the Court found that Defendant is entitled to conduct discovery in this
case. And while Plaintiff notes that the court in Cox stated in its second order that
“[c]ourts have rejected insurer arguments that appraisal conflicts are coverage disputes
hiding in plain sight,” the court conducted that analysis on a motion for summary
judgment—after discovery had been completed. See Cox, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
66861, at *10-30. And to the extent Plaintiff relies on Beverly Hills Racquet & Health
Club v. Cincinnati Cas. Ins. Co., No. 19-12388, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141341, at *15
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2020), an order issued prior to Plaintiff filing its underlying motion,
the Court need not address it on a motion for reconsideration. See Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that parties should not use
motions for reconsideration “to raise arguments which could, and should, have been
made before” the ruling issued).
Case 2:20-cv-11536-NGE-RSW ECF No. 33, PageID.1412 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3
In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court and
the parties have been misled. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: February 17, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on February 17, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?