The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul D. Borman United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 1, 2010, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which it pierced the corporate veil of Defendant Taycom Business Solutions, Inc ("Taycom") and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff International Millennium Consultants, Inc. ("IMC") and against Dante and Vonnita Bishop, Taycom's shareholders, personally, and Innosynth Technologies, LLC ("Innosynth"), Dante Bishop's new company.
On March 15, 2010, Taycom filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 1, 2010, Opinion and Order. Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3), which states, in relevant part, that a party moving for reconsideration 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."
In the present motion, Taycom asserts two arguments. First, Taycom contends that "numerous genuine issues of material fact . . . should have prevented the Court from granting [IMC's motion to pierce the corporate veil]." The Court rejects this argument, as the Court applied the proper legal standards and correctly determined that Taycom's corporate veil should be pierced. The arguments advanced by Taycom on pages 3-5 of its motion for reconsideration were previously addressed and rejected by the Court in its March 1, 2010, Opinion and Order. "Motions for Reconsideration which merely present the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted." Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Moreover, contrary to Taycom's baseless assertion that "there was no hearing" on IMC's motion to pierce the corporate veil, the Court notes that a hearing was held on February 17, 2010, at which Taycom's counsel, Mr. Frank, was present.
Taycom's second argument is that "there was no procedural basis for finding [Vonnita Bishop and Innosynth] liable." Taycom cites the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Green v. Ziegelman, 282 Mich. App. 292 (2009), in support of this argument. Taycom does not argue, and never has, that Green prevents the Court from imposing personal liability on Dante Bishop.
Having reviewed Green, the Court finds merit to Taycom's argument.*fn1 Accordingly, Vonnita Bishop and Innosynth cannot be held liable for the judgment entered by this Court on September 17, 2009.*fn2
PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES ...