Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Gaglio v. City of Taylor

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

October 26, 2016

Rosolino Gaglio, Plaintiff,
v.
City of Taylor, et al., Defendants.

          David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge

         ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [32], AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [33], AND MOTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION [34], AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Hon. Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

          I. Introduction

         On October 19, 2016, the Court struck Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as untimely pursuant to the Court's earlier order. See Dkt. No. 31. That same day, Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration, alleging that the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants in its motion striking Plaintiff's untimely response brief. See Dkt. No. 32, 33. On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third motion, requesting that the Court consider medical documentation regarding Plaintiff's Counsel's daughter. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff filed an errata sheet on the amended motion on October 24, 2016. Dkt. No. 35.

         Since Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration are based on an obvious misunderstanding of the Court's order and do not provide evidence that the Court made any palpable errors, the Court will DENY the Plaintiff's Motions [32, 33]. Additionally, the Court will also DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Provide Medical Documentation [34], pursuant to its denial of the motions for reconsideration.

         II. Legal Standard

         Under this Court's Local Rules, the Court may not grant a motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same issues upon which the Court already ruled. LR 7.1(h)(3) (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013). Additionally, the movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the opinion or order under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Id.; Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect' is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F.Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).

         III. Discussion

         A. The Court Did Not Grant Summary Judgment To Defendants

         The Court's order striking Plaintiff's untimely response did not state or imply that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment had been granted. See Dkt. No. 31. There was no notification on the docket implying that the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment had been cancelled pursuant to the order striking Plaintiff's response. There was no entry of an opinion and order granting summary judgment following the order striking Plaintiff's response.

         Simply stated, there are no facts that support Plaintiff's allegation that the Court granted Defendants summary judgment. The Court has not yet ruled on the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's misunderstanding of the Court's order does not provide evidence that the Court has made a palpable defect.

         B. Plaintiff Submitted a Late Response Without Seeking Permission of the Court

         Plaintiff's motion for a second extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary was requested in order for Plaintiff to receive deposition transcripts of Commander Hopper, Sergeant Hall, and Officer Wietfeldt. See Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff explicitly requested that the Court allow him to respond “on or before October 13, 2016.” Id. at 2. Although this was the second extension requested on the matter, the Court granted it pursuant to the terms that Plaintiff requested. Dkt. No. 29 (“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until October 13, 2016 to file a response brief to the Motion for Summary Judgment.”). The Court also explicitly stated that, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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