Opinion
Case No. 10-cv-10900.
July 25, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the June 30, 2011 order. (Doc. # 57).
A court will grant a motion for reconsideration if the movant can (1) "demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . . have been misled," and (2) "show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). "A `palpable defect' is `a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.'" United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). A motion for reconsideration that presents "the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication," will not be granted. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3); see Czajkowski v. Tindall Assocs., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
The Defendants reassert the same arguments made in the original motion for dismissal. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) states that "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." See also Czajkowski v. Tindall Assocs., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
The Court declines to again consider Defendants' arguments.
The Motion is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED.