United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MRS. GINA SHARBOWSKI, individually and o/b/o T.S., a minor, jointly and severally, Plaintiffs,
UTICA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO.
D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 13, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order
granting Defendant Utica Community Schools' Motion to
Dismiss and entered Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's
Complaint with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) On February 28,
2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No.
28.) The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
motion for reconsideration is governed by the local rules in
the Eastern District of Michigan, which provide that the
movant must show both that there is a palpable defect in the
opinion and that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case.” Indah v. U.S.
S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). Eastern
District of Michigan Local Rule LR 7.1(h)(3) provides in
Generally, and without restricting the court's
discretion, the 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. 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.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect' is
a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins.
Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “A
motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, will not be granted.” Ford
Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.Com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628,
632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “A motion for reconsideration
should not be used liberally to get a second bite at the
apple, but should be used sparingly to correct
actual defects in the court's opinion.”
Oswald v. BAE Industries, Inc., No. 10-cv-12660,
2010 WL 5464271, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2010) (citing
Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F.Supp.2d 759, 780
(E.D. Mich. 2010) (“‘It is an exception to the
norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration. . .
. [A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a
ruling on a motion, the Court will not provide a party with
an opportunity to relitigate issues already
decided.'”)). “[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.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Public
Schools, 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
See also Allen v. Henry Ford Health Sys., No.
08-14106, 2010 WL 653253, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2010)
(holding that motions for reconsideration do not permit a
party to “to raise new legal theories that should have
been raised earlier” or “attempt to supplement
the record with previously available evidence”).
Sixth Circuit has affirmed these standards, which govern the
Court's consideration of Plaintiff's motion for
It is well-settled that “parties cannot use a motion
for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could
have been raised before a judgment was issued.”
Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ'g, 477
F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007). Additionally, reconsideration
motions cannot be used as an opportunity to re-argue a case.
Furthermore, a party may not introduce evidence for the first
time in a motion for reconsideration where that evidence
could have been presented earlier.
Bank of Ann Arbor v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co., 563
Fed.Appx. 473, 476 (6th Cir. 2014). See also Zucker v.
City of Farmington Hills, 643 Fed.Appx. 555, 572 (6th
Cir. 2016) (“It is also “well-settled” law
in this circuit that parties cannot use a motion for
reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have
been raised before a judgment was issued. . . . [a]nd [n]ew
arguments based on hindsight regarding how a movant would
have preferred to have argued its case do not provide grounds
for Rule 60(b) relief.”) (internal quotation marks and
motion for reconsideration does not identify any error in the
Court's February 13, 2019 Opinion and Order nor
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the
parties have been misled. In fact, the motion does not direct
the Court to any specific portion of the Court's February
13, 2019 Opinion and Order. Rather the motion appears to be
Plaintiff's effort to refashion and reargue her case by
reiterating her feelings about how the educational system has
disappointed her and presenting a generalized grievance
regarding certain aspects of the existing special education
motion for reconsideration fails to identify any palpable
defect in the Court's February 13, 2019 Opinion and