UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

B&P PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12672 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v 

GLOBAL BEARINGS & P. T. INC., 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff B&P Process Equipment and Systems, LLC (“B&P”), filed suit 

against Defendant Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc., for breach of contract and indemnity. 

B&P claims that Applied Industrial sold counterfeit bearings in violation of the terms of the 

purchase order. 

 On December 19, 2014, Applied Industrial filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

asserting that the applicable statute of limitations had run on B&P’s claims. On February 3, 

2015, the Court denied Applied Industrial’s motion, concluding that B&P had sufficiently 

pleaded fraudulent concealment so as to toll the statute of limitations. 

 On February 13, 2015, Applied Industrial filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting 

that this Court erred when it concluded that B&P had sufficiently pleaded fraudulent 

concealment. Because a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to repeat and re-argue 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 144
- 2 - 

arguments already presented and addressed, Applied Industrial’s motion for reconsideration will 

be denied. 

I 

On January 9, 2008, B&P issued a purchase order to Applied Industrial for four bearings. 

Compl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 1. The purchase order requested four spherical roller thrust bearings and 

specified their size, load limits, and manufacturer identification—SKF part No. 29480. Id. The 

purchase order further stated: “ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS”. Id. 

 Applied Industrial shipped two bearings on March 4, 2008, and two bearings on April 1, 

2008. Mot. J. Pleadings Ex. 1, Ex. 2. Each invoice identified the bearings shipped as “Part 

Number 29480EM”—the part number requested in B&P’s purchase order. Id. On April 30, 

2008, B&P issued a check for $96,306.74 to Applied Technologies pursuant to the purchase 

order. 

B&P incorporated the bearings into industrial mixers known as Ko-Kneaders and sold the 

mixers to a third party, Emirates Aluminum Company, Limited in Abu Dhabi, United Arab 

Emirates. Compl. ¶ 9. 

In December 2013, B&P received a call from Emirates Aluminum Company seeking 

repairs to one of the Ko-Kneaders mixers. B&P determined that the Ko-Kneader had 

malfunctioned because of failed bearings. Emirates Aluminum Company paid B&P a total of 

$309,399.19 to replace the failed bearings and for B&P’s service time and travel. Compl. Ex. B. 

After repairing the Ko-Kneader, B&P forwarded the failed bearing to the supposed 

manufacturer, SFK, for analysis. Compl. ¶ 12. SFK determined that it did not manufacture the 

failed bearing and the bearing in question was counterfeit. Id. ¶ 13. 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 145
- 3 - 

Emirates Aluminum Company has demanded a refund of the $309,399.19 it paid to B&P 

in the mistaken belief that the Ko-Kneader failure was attributable to ordinary wear and tear, 

rather than a counterfeit bearing. Compl. ¶ 14. Moreover, B&P is expected to replace the 

remaining bearing in Emirates Aluminum Company’s other Ko-Kneader, which B&P estimates 

would cost $42,918.70. Id. ¶ 15. 

On July 8, 2014, B&P filed this breach of contract action against Applied Industrial for 

selling the counterfeit bearings. B&P seeks to recover $352,317.89 to (1) reimburse Emirates 

what it paid to repair the Ko-Kneader mixer and (2) retrofit the other machines that contain the 

counterfeit bearings that have not yet failed. 

II 

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for 

reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. 

Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion or oral argument shall be allowed unless the 

Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2). Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h)(3) “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 reason of implication.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). In a 

motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that the court and the parties were 

misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect that is 

obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. 

Mich. 1997). The movant must also show a palpable defect which, if corrected, would result in a 

different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). 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 presented earlier. Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 146
- 4 - 

(motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration not initial 

consideration”) (citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)). 

III 

 In its February 3, 2015 Order, the Court concluded that B&P had sufficiently alleged 

fraudulent concealment so as to toll the statute of limitations as provided by Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 600.5855. Applied contends, however, that this Court erred when it failed to address whether 

Applied engaged in activity for the purpose of preventing B&P from realizing the existence of a 

cause of action. Applied acknowledges that the Court cited controlling authority, but that the 

Court nevertheless erred in its application. 

 This Court has already concluded that B&P sufficiently alleged an affirmative act by 

Applied that was designed to prevent discovery of the claim: Applied included invoices with the 

shipped bearings that identified the bearings as “Part Number 29480EM”—the part number 

requested in B&P’s purchase order. Although Applied Industrial disagrees with this conclusion, 

mere disagreement is not a “palpable defect.” Because Applied’s argument to the contrary is an 

attempt to re-hash an argument previously presented and addressed, Applied’s motion for 

reconsideration is unavailing. 

IV

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Applied Industrial’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(ECF No. 20) is DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 24, 2015 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 147
- 5 - 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on February 24, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-12672-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 148