Moody et al v. Michigan Gaming Control Board et al

Filing 159

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 157 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN MOODY, DONALD HARMON, RICK RAY,
and WALLY MCILLMURRAY, JR.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12-cv-13593

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MICHIGAN GAMING CONTROL BOARD,
RICHARD KALM, GARY POST, DARYL PARKER,
RICHARD GARRISON, BILLY LEE WILLIAMS,
JOHN LESSNAU, and AL ERNST,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS

Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [157]
I. INTRODUCTION
John Moody, Donald Harmon, Rick Ray, and Wally McIllmurray, Jr. (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) commenced the instant action against the Michigan Gaming Control Board, Richard
Kalm, Gary Post, Daryl Parker, Richard Garrison, Billy Lee Williams, John Lessnau, and Al
Ernst (collectively “Defendants”) on August 14, 2012. See Dkt. No. 1. On November 24, 2015,
the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion for Abeyance until February 20, 2016. See Dkt. No.
154.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification. See
Dkt. No. 157. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will DENY the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration.

-1-

II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Under this Court’s Local Rules, the Court may not grant a motion for reconsideration
which merely presents the same issues that the Court already ruled on. LR 7.1(h)(3)(E.D. Mich.
July 1, 2013). Additionally, the movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the
opinion or order under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of
the case. Id.; Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a
defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health
Systems, 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines
Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s ruling was “contrary to a ruling on a similar Motion in
the 6th Circuit filed by Defendants after the issuance of the original decision and, arguably,
contrary to the law of the case.” See Dkt. No. 157 at 2 (Pg. ID No. 4053). Plaintiffs however
chose not to argue or even provide any of the referenced contrary law. Therefore, Plaintiffs have
failed to point to a “palpable defect” in the Court’s decision to exercise its discretion in staying
the case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration fails.
B. Plaintiffs’ Request for Schedule Clarification
Plaintiffs have also requested clarification on how the Court’s decision to stay the action
will affect the schedule for the remaining proceedings. Specifically, Plaintiffs question (1) if the
trial date has been adjourned?; (2) when will the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment
be decided?; (3) what will happen to the pending motions to amend the complaint and compel
discovery?; and (4) how can the parties meet and prepare the Final Joint Pretrial Order for
2/24/16 if the matter is stayed until 2/20/16?

-2-

Whenever the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is resolved the Court will hold a
scheduling conference and set new dates for all future events on the current schedule..
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above,
IT IS HEREBY OREDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will hold a new scheduling conference on
Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of setting all new dates.

Dated: January 13, 2016
Detroit, MI

/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-3-