Moody et al v. Michigan Gaming Control Board et al

Filing 190

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#176]. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN MOODY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 12-13593
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain

v.
MICHIGAN GAMING CONTROL BOARD,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[#176]
I.

INTRODUCTION
On August 15, 2016, this Court entered an Opinion and Order granting

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim.
See Dkt. No. 172. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration, filed on September 6, 2016. Specifically, Plaintiffs move for
reconsideration of this Court’s conclusion that the Fifth Amendment right at issue
herein was not clearly established at the time of the stewards’ hearing, thus qualified
immunity shields Defendants from suit.

II.

LAW & ANALYSIS
-1-

Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan provides:
Generally, and without restricting the Court’s discretion, the Court will
not grant motions for rehearing or 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. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684
(E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D.
Mich. 2001)). “[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to
re-hash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but
were not.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637
(E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146
F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)).
In their present motion, Plaintiffs complain that this Court framed the Fifth
Amendment issue too narrowly and correction of this palpable defect will result in a
different disposition of this case. Plaintiffs merely present the same argument
previously raised in the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. This is not a

-2-

proper basis upon which to grant reconsideration. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); Mount
Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d at 637. The Court thoroughly considered and
rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the Fifth Amendment right at issue herein was
clearly established at the time of the stewards’ hearing. Plaintiffs have failed to
provide any authority demonstrating that the stewards were on notice that their actions
violated the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs have not shown a palpable defect by which
this Court has been misled the correction of which will result in a different disposition
of this case.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [#176] is

DENIED.
Dated: September 20, 2016

/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
September 20, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Tanya Bankston
Deputy Clerk

-3-