UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

LOUIS N. RADDEN, D.O., and SPINE

SPECIALISTS OF MICHIGAN, P.C.,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

 /

Case No. 14-13299

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER DENYING

 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

This matter came before the court on Spine Specialists of Michigan's March 7, 2016 Motion

for Reconsideration of the Court's February 22, 2016 Order Granting State Farm's Motion to Dismiss

the Counterclaim and for Leave to Amend. State Farm filed a response March 22, 2016. No reply

was filed, and no oral argument was heard.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

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.

L.R. 7.1(h)(3).

"[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." 

5:14-cv-13299-JCO-SDD Doc # 97 Filed 02/16/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2369
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D.

Mich. 2003). In its motion for reconsideration, defendant Spine Specialists of

Michigan presents the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by

reasonable implication. Accordingly, the court must deny its motion for

reconsideration.

A district court properly denies leave to amend a complaint if the proposed

amendment would be futile. See Brown v. Owens Corning Inv. Review Comm., 622

F.3d 564, 574 (6th Cir. 2010).

Defendant Spine Specialists seeks leave to amend the counterclaim, asserting that

because it now has access to State Farm's files, it can determine the identity of the

"IME physician and/or company that conducted the fraudulent IME's for specific

patients." Def.'s mot. br. at 17-18. However, the identities of physicians who

provided independent medical exams ("IME's") do not cure Defendant's remaining

Rule 9(b) pleading deficiencies as previously determined by the court. Defendant

provides no additional facts it proposes would cure those deficiencies or any facts that

would demonstrate that State Farm owed a duty separate and distinct from its

contractual and statutory obligations. Therefore, amending the counterclaim would

be futile.

ORDER

2

5:14-cv-13299-JCO-SDD Doc # 97 Filed 02/16/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2370
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration and for

leave to amend is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: February 16, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel

of record on this date, February 16, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

3

5:14-cv-13299-JCO-SDD Doc # 97 Filed 02/16/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2371