Watermark Senior Living Retimrement Communities, Inc. v. Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.
ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
WATERMARK SENIOR LIVING
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.,
Case No. 17-11886
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s
August 22, 2017 opinion and order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 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). A motion for reconsideration “is not properly used as a vehicle to rehash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but
were not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Schools, 298 F. Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich.
2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 357,
374 (6th Cir. 1998)).
Having filed a motion that reiterates arguments already considered by the
court, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a “palpable defect” by which the court and
parties have been misled.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: October 24, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, October 24, 2017, using the ECF system.
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?