Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Patton Wallcoverings, Inc. v. Kseri

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

July 30, 2015

Patton Wallcoverings, Inc. and James J. Patton, Plaintiffs,
v.
Rami Kseri, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging defamation, defamation by implication, and tortious interference with a business relationship based on an email Defendant sent to Plaintiffs' customers. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss that the Court granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 14.) Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' defamation claims but allowed their tortious interference claim to proceed. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny its motion as to the tortious interference claim. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES this motion.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a party may file a motion for reconsideration within fourteen days after a court issues an order to which the party objects. Although a court has the discretion to grant such a motion, it generally will not grant a motion for reconsideration that "merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication." E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h). To persuade the court to grant the motion, the movant "must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other parties entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." Id.

Defendant's motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1(h). Defendant has not set out a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled, but instead has merely re-hashed the arguments it previously made in its motion to dismiss. See Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ("A motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not."). The Court sees no reason to address these arguments again.[1]

Defendant's motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.