Pegross v. Oakland County Treasurer et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 16 Motion for Emergency Hearing. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHERMAN PEGROSS d/b/a
ROSENBLUM & FRANKEL
INVESTMENT COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-13072
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
THE OAKLAND COUNTY
TREASURER, ANDREW MEISNER,
THE OAKLAND COUNTY TREASURER’S
OFFICE AND THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his
motion for injunctive relief. On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff also filed a motion for an emergency
or expedited hearing on the motion for reconsideration. Defendants filed a response on August
15, 2012; Plaintiff submitted a reply brief on August 16, 2012.
On August 17, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Plaintiff’s petition
for a writ of mandamus; Plaintiff had requested that the Sixth Circuit direct this court to issue an
injunction. The Sixth Circuit found, in part, that Plaintiff “has not demonstrated a strong
likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying litigation or such irreparable harm that an
injunction should issue.”
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is as follows:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court
will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration which

merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant shall not only
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties
have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.

LR 7.1(h)(3).
In light of the Sixth Circuit’s order, and for the reasons set forth in this court’s August 3,
2012 order, the court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a “palpable defect” by which the
court and the parties have been misled. Further, pursuant to L.R. 7.1(h)(2), the court finds that
the record is sufficiently developed and that oral argument is not necessary.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s August 9, 2012 motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency or expedited
hearing is DENIED.
s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge

Date: November 7, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of
record on this date, November 7, 2012, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-2-