United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Steven Whalen U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge
brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan
state law to restore Daniel Kerber's pension benefits.
They seek compensation for the decisions by the Wayne County
Employees Retirement System (“WCERS”) to cut off
his pension, and the decision by the Wayne County
Prosecutor's Office's (“WCPO”) to
prosecute him for his partial withdrawal of his pension
funds. On March 26, 2019, the Court denied their motion for a
preliminary injunction, granted the WCPO defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety, and granted in part and
denied in part the WCERS defendants' motion to dismiss.
[Dkt. # 50].
move the Court to reconsider its March 26 Order. The Local
Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan provide as
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.
palpable defect is a defect which is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Fleck v. Titan
Tire Corp., 177 F.Supp.2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
argue that the Court's reasoning was plagued with several
palpable defects. First, they argue that a preliminary
injunction is warranted. They contend that the Court
misevaluated the irreparable harm prong of the preliminary
injunction analysis and misconstrued Mr. Kerber's
severance agreement. Second, they argue that the WCPO
Defendants should not have been dismissed. They focus on
evidence that WCPO defendants were sufficiently involved in
the decision to terminate Mr. Kerber's pension benefits,
and that Defendant Kim Worthy does not have absolute immunity
for her statements to the press. For the reasons below, the
motion will be denied in its entirety.
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate
“that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief.” Winter v. NRDC,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiffs oppose the
Court's holding that Mr. Kerber cannot establish a
likelihood of irreparable harm for a delay in his
“purely monetary” relief. This holding was guided
by precedent that “income wrongly withheld may be
recovered through monetary damages in the form of back
pay.” (Dkt. 50 pg. 8-9 (citing Overstreet v.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 305 F.3d 566,
579, (6th Cir. 2002)). Overstreet is binding,
whereas Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 845 F.Supp. 410
(E.D. Mich. 1994) (which Plaintiffs did not cite in their
original motion) is only persuasive. Moreover, the two cases
do not even reach contradictory holdings. A pensioner could
establish a likelihood of irreparable harm from the loss of
his pension if the effects of his financial ...