Opinion
Case No.: 1:18-cv-11870-TLL-PTM
05-28-2019
BANK OF THE OZARKS, Plaintiff, v. PERFECT HEALTH SKIN AND BODY CENTER PLLC, and THEODORE BASH, an individual, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Defendant Bash's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying his motion for summary judgment in part. ECF No. 60. A full factual and procedural history can be found in that order.
I.
Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), a party can file a motion for reconsideration of a previous order but must do so within fourteen days. A motion for reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows: "(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect misled the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3)). A "palpable defect" is "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Id. at 734 (citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). "[T]he 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." E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). See also Bowens v. Terris, 2015 WL 3441531, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2015).
II.
Defendant argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court ruled on his motion before he had a chance to file his reply brief. Indeed, the Court ruled on the motion on May 24, and Defendant's reply brief was not due until May 28. Defendant will be permitted to file a reply brief.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 61, is GRANTED in part.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant's reply brief is due on May 31, 2019.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge Dated: May 28, 2019