H.R. Technologies, Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc.

Full title: H.R. TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. ASTECHNOLOGIES…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 1, 2002

No. 99-CV-73700-DT (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2002)

Opinion

No. 99-CV-73700-DT.

February 1, 2002

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

GEORGE E. WOODS, United States District Judge

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's motion for reconsideration of this Court's December 4, 2001, Order [Document No. 124];

The Court having reviewed the pleadings submitted herein and determining, pursuant to E.D. MICH. LOCAL RULE 7.1(g)(2), that no oral argument is necessary to resolve the instant motion, and being otherwise fully informed in the matter;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's motion shall be, and hereby is, DENIED.

I.

A party seeking reconsideration of a Court's order must demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled and show that a correction of the mistake dictates a different disposition of the case. See E.D. MICH. LOCAL RULE 7.1(g)(3); Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Specifically, Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) states:

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 have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

Id. Furthermore, as the above law illustrates, any motion for reconsideration that simply reiterates the same issues relied upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, must be denied. See Local Rule 7.1(g)(3); Witzke, 972 F. Supp. at 427.

II.

Upon review of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's (hereinafter "Plaintiff") instant motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a palpable defect occurred in this Court's prior Order, filed December 4, 2001.¹ Instead, Plaintiff's arguments in support of reconsideration repeat the assertions previously addressed, and rejected, by this Court. Nothing presented in the present motion demonstrates that a different disposition should be reached.

1 Plaintiff refers to the Order as dated November 29, 2001. For clarity, the Court refers to the Order according to the date it was filed with the Clerk of the Court, December 4, 2001, as reflected on the docket of this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.