Opinion
Case No. 04-71792.
February 24, 2006
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter came before the court on Defendant's June 30, 2005 motion for reconsideration of the court's June 21, 2005 judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Kristeen Garrett. The court had filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law April 29, 2005. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion for reconsideration January 6, 2006; and Defendant filed a reply January 17, 2006.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 1998),
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(g)(3).
"A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly because of the interest in finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." United States v. The Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
In this case Defendant has presented no new law or facts but simply attempts to relitigate issues previously argued and decided by the court. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's June 30, 2005 motion for reconsideration is DENIED.