Filed: Feb. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEAN F. COX , District Judge . Acting pro se, Plaintiff Yusong Gong ("Gong") filed this action on December 28, 2016. In an Opinion & Order issued on December 14, 2018, this Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 82). Thereafter, on December 27, 2018, Gong filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 84). Unless the Court orders otherwise, no response to a motion
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEAN F. COX , District Judge . Acting pro se, Plaintiff Yusong Gong ("Gong") filed this action on December 28, 2016. In an Opinion & Order issued on December 14, 2018, this Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 82). Thereafter, on December 27, 2018, Gong filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 84). Unless the Court orders otherwise, no response to a motion f..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
Acting pro se, Plaintiff Yusong Gong ("Gong") filed this action on December 28, 2016. In an Opinion & Order issued on December 14, 2018, this Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 82). Thereafter, on December 27, 2018, Gong filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 84).
Unless the Court orders otherwise, no response to a motion for reconsideration is permitted and no hearing is held. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). This Court concludes that, with respect to Gong's Motion for Reconsideration, neither a response brief nor a hearing is necessary.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, which provides:
(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.
See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration does not afford a movant an opportunity to present the same issues that have been already ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.
As explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, "[i]t 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.'" Bank of Ann Arbor v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co., 562 F. App'x 473, 476 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting 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 the evidence could have been presented earlier." Id.
Here, Gong's motion improperly does all of the above — including submitting some 177 pages of documents to the Court for the first time.1
Again, in order to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court has been misled and must also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. After reviewing Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met that standard.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
