Bradley v. XDM, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION   VALERIE BRADLEY, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-14154 Hon. Terrence G. Berg v. XDM, Inc., Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 22) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Valerie Bradley’s February 27, 2017 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 22) of the Court’s February 3, 2017 Order (Dkt. 20) granting Defendant XDM’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 16). For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) is DENIED. I. ANALYSIS The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the movant satisfactorily shows that: (1) a palpable defect misled the parties and the Court; and (2) correcting the defect would result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A defect is palpable if it is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Olson v. Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court will not grant a motion for reconsideration “that merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” Id. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration raises no new issues or argument—it merely reiterates the arguments made in Plaintiff’s prior briefs, and argues that the Court was incorrect in failing to accept Plaintiff’s view of the case. The Court has already carefully explained its reasons for concluding that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. (Dkt. 20). Because Plaintiff identifies no palpable defect in the Court’s order, her motion for reconsideration is not well taken and must be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 36) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2017 s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of record were served on July 10, 2017. s/A. Chubb Case Manager 2  

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?