Keshtgarpour v. Henry Ford Health System et al

Filing 32

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's First Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MANI KESHTGARPOUR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-12917
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COURT’S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #30)
By order dated September 11, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Mani
Keshtgarpour, M.D.’s Complaint on the ground that his claims were barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations (the “Dismissal Order”). (See Dismissal Order,
ECF #22.) Keshtgarpour thereafter moved for reconsideration of the Dismissal
Order (see First Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF #29), and the Court denied relief in
a written order dated November 30, 2018. (See Order Denying Mot. for
Reconsideration, ECF #30.) On December 13, 2018, Keshtgarpour filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s November 30 order denying his first motion for
reconsideration. (See Second Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF #31.) Keshtgarpour’s
second motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

1

Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h).
Under that rule, “[a] motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14
days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). In
addition:
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. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
The Court has carefully reviewed Keshtgarpour’s second motion for
reconsideration and concludes that he is not entitled to relief. None of the arguments
raised in the motion persuade the Court that it palpably erred when it denied
Keshtgarpour’s first motion for reconsideration. Nor has Keshtgarpour shown that
even if such a defect existed, it would have resulted in a different disposition of the
case. Accordingly, Keshtgarpour has not established an entitlement to relief under
Local Rule 7.1(h). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Keshtgarpour’s second
motion for reconsideration (ECF #30) is DENIED.

Dated: December 17, 2018

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 17, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3