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.

Hughes v. Henry Ford Health System

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

August 8, 2019

VALERIYA HUGHES, Plaintiff,
v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION [#24; #25]

          DENISE PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Valeriya Hughes (“Hughes”) and Defendant Henry Ford Health System's (“HFHS”) Motions for Reconsideration. (Doc # 24; Doc #25) Hughes filed her Motion on August 31, 2018 and HFHS filed its Motion on August 30, 2018. (Id.) On August 17, 2018, the Court entered an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc # 22) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Hughes and HFHS' Motions for Reconsideration.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No. response to the motion and no oral argument thereon are permitted unless the Court orders otherwise. Id. at 7.1(h)(2). Hughes and HFHS' Motions are timely filed.

         Local Rule 7.1 further states:

(3) Grounds. 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.

Id. at 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘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). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration”) (citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)).

         B. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration

         1. Appropriate Standard of Review

         Hughes argues that the Court made a palpable error in its August 17, 2018 Order because it applied an inappropriate standard of review when assessing her case. The Court finds that Hughes has not met her burden on a motion for reconsideration, as she has not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled.

         First, Hughes claims that the Court did not “view the evidence and all inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party” and failed to accept as true any direct evidence offered by her in response to HFHS' Motion for Summary Judgment. While Hughes makes this argument, she neglects to offer any facts to support such a claim. The Court will not take into consideration unsupported and bare assertions.

         Next, Hughes asserts that when the Court evaluated HFHS' Motion for Summary Judgment, it applied the incorrect summary judgment standard in regard to her burden required to demonstrate pretext. Hughes provided the Court with what she deems is the proper summary judgment standard in this context and argues that the Court should have used the standard that the court applies in Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1993). Further, Hughes criticized the Court for instead referring to a standard from Idemudia v. J.P. Morgan Chase, 434 Fed.Appx. 495 (6th Cir. 2011), and argues that although the Idemudia court addressed the plaintiff's burden in general, the court in Hairston specified how plaintiffs must prove the existence of pretext.

         Hughes' argument is flawed. As an initial note, the Court turned to several Sixth Circuit cases when describing the different factors needed to be met for Hughes to show pretext under each of her claims. But, the Court did not refer to Idemudia in reference to pretext.[1] Nevertheless, even if Hughes could prove that any of the standards that pertain to pretext from the Sixth Circuit cases are too ...


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.