KELMENDI et al v. HOGAN

Filing 84

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER 58 Objection filed by JOHN KELMENDI, TOM DJONOVIC AND 59 Objection filed by JOHN KELMENDI, TOM DJONOVIC. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (KGri)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN KELMENDI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 20-12354
v.
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
T. HOGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER [#s 58, 59]
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF Nos. 58 and 59],
which the Court considers as Motions for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order
Extending Scheduling Order [ECF No. 54].
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion
for reconsideration of non-final orders must be filed within 14 days after entry of the
order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). No response to the motion and no oral argument are
permitted unless the Court Orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Motions for
reconsideration may be brought upon the following grounds:
(A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake changes the
outcome of the prior decision, and the mistake was based on the record
and law before the court at the time of its prior decision;

(B) An intervening change in controlling law warrants a different
outcome; or
(C) New facts warrant a different outcome and the new facts could not
have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old
arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have
brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.
1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial
consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)).
The Stipulation and Order for Extension of Scheduling Order [ECF No. 54] was
entered on February 1, 2023. As indicated in the Order, the extension was stipulated
to by the parties. At that time, Plaintiffs were represented by counsel. Plaintiffs, now
proceeding pro se, filed their “Objections” on July 21, 2023 and August 14, 2023,
more than five months from the entry of the February 1, 2023 Order, well beyond the
14 days required to file a motion for reconsideration under the local rules set forth
above. The Court will not consider the untimely motions. Even if the Court were to
consider the untimely motions, as noted, the extension of dates were agreed to by the
parties. The Court did not make a mistake on entering the order extending the dates
in this matter.
Accordingly,
2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF Nos. 58, 59], considered as
Motions for Reconsideration of the Stipulation and Order for Extension of Scheduling
Order [ECF No. 54], are DENIED.

s/Denise Page Hood_________
DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge
DATED: November 15, 2023

3