United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 43)
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
Inc. (“Perceptron”), 3Cems, and non-party Odyssey
Electronics, Inc. entered into a supply agreement
(“Agreement”) for a project called
filed a single-count breach of contract complaint against
Perceptron, alleging that Perceptron breached the Agreement
and the Guarantee Letter when it failed to pay for ordered
component parts. Perceptron says that 3Cems has no right to
sue it, since its suppliers - and not 3Cems - purchased the
and Perceptron filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On
December 20, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in
part 3Cems' motion, and denied Perception's Motion
for Summary Judgment.
now asks the Court to reconsider its entire order.
Specifically, Perceptron says the Court made several errors
1. The separateness of 3Cems and its affiliates;
2. The number of units covered by the purchase order at
3. The lack of genuine issues of material fact concerning
Paul Eckoff's authority to bind Perceptron to the
4. The applicability of every argument Perceptron raised
concerning the Guarantee Letter; and,
5. The Tolling Agreement and whether it pertained to
Perceptron's statute of limitations defense.
Rule 7.1(h)(3) guides the Court in its review of
Generally, and without restricting the court's
discretion, the court will not grant motions for ...
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 and other persons
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.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or
plain.” Mich. Dep't of Treasury v.