United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60 AND FED. R.
CIV. P. 59 [#30]
Page Hood Chief Judge
filed this cause of action on November 11, 2015, alleging
that he was constructively discharged in violation of the
Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). On March
22, 2017, the Court issued an Order that granted
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 3,
2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Relief from Final
Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59
(“Motion for Reconsideration”). Dkt. No. 30.
relevant facts regarding this case were set forth in the
Court's March 22, 2017 Order. The Court incorporates
those facts by reference in this Order.
Plaintiff's Motion is titled “Motion for Relief
from Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, ” the Court finds that it is a motion
for reconsideration and treats it as one.
order to obtain reconsideration of a particular matter, the
party bringing the motion for reconsideration must: (1)
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the
parties have been misled; and (2) demonstrate that
“correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
See also Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of
Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2004); Aetna
Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 44 F.Supp.2d 865,
866 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Kirkpatrick v. General
Electric, 969 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
“palpable defect” is a “defect which is
obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.”
Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874
(E.D.Mich. 2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the
disposition of the case would be different if the palpable
defect were cured. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Brown v.
Walgreens Income Protective Plan for Store Managers, No.
10-CV-14442, 2013 WL 1040530, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15,
2013). “[T]he 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.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
Court finds that Plaintiff fails to offer any new argument in
his Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's current
arguments, like his arguments with respect to the
parties' summary judgment motions, focus on statements
that his mother was admitted to the hospital with a serious
medical condition. The undisputed evidence presented shows
that Plaintiff told Defendant's Human Resources Service
Technician Andrea Davis that he needed leave to care for his
mother who was seriously ill, but Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration is plagued by the same deficiency as his
support of his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts
that his mother and her treating doctors would
testify at trial regarding her serious medical
condition. But, Plaintiff never provided evidence that: (a)
his mother has (or had) cancer or systemic lupas; or (b) he
cared for his mother at the hospital. Plaintiff did not
provide any such evidence to Defendant prior to filing the
lawsuit, he did not provide it during discovery, he did not
submit such evidence at the summary judgment stage, and he
has not provided it in support of his Motion for
Reconsideration - even after the Court noted in the March 22,
2017 Order that Plaintiff has continually failed to provide
such evidence. In order to survive summary judgment,
Plaintiff had to submit such evidence before or at the
summary judgment stage to defeat a summary judgment motion.
Merely stating that such evidence will be presented at trial
is not sufficient to survive a Rule 56 motion.
argues that Defendant did not request any information
regarding his mother's alleged serious health condition.
Plaintiff's argument is erroneous - and it was presented
to the Court at the summary judgment stage. The Court
considered and analyzed that argument, and then the Court
specifically addressed the argument in its March 22, 2017
Order. See Dkt. No. 28, PgID 529-33. As
Defendant's argument regarding this issue is nothing more