-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

REHAB SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ST. JAMES NURSING & PHYSICAL 

REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 14-cv-13651 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MONA K. MAJZOUB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [54] 

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 19, 2014, Rehab Solutions, Inc. (“Rehab Solutions” or “Plaintiff”), 

commenced this breach of contract action against St. James Nursing & Physical Rehabilitation 

Center, Inc. (“St. James” or “Defendant”), alleging that St. James failed to pay certain invoices 

for services rendered by Rehab Solutions. See Dkt. No. 1. Presently before the Court is St. 

James’ Emergency Motion for Reconsideration [54]. The Court will DENY this Motion [54].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for Reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which provides: 

[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues 

ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be 

granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the 

court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of 

the case must result from a correction thereof. 

2:14-cv-13651-GAD-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 09/15/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1096
-2- 

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, 

manifest, or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004) 

(quoting United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). 

IV. DISCUSSION

St. James does not point out a palpable defect in this Court’s Order. Instead, St. James 

takes issue with the Court choosing to provide St. James with yet another opportunity to present 

a clear record of this case by simply providing an affidavit that was purportedly taken prior to the 

summary judgment briefing. This entire process was initiated to give St. James an opportunity to 

further support its argument for summary judgment. See 11 James WM. Moore et al., Moore's 

Federal Practice § 56.99[2][a] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2015) (“[Giving a party another 

opportunity to support or address a fact] will often be the best option, minimizing the chance of 

an unjust result based on an inadequate record.”). Even after being presented with an ideal 

opportunity to supplement the record with the affidavit it claimed it forgot to attach, St. James 

has indicated that it still “cannot locate[] the [] affidavit for production with this Court.” Dkt. No. 

54. In light of this fact, the Court will deny St. James Motion for Reconsideration. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the Court HEREBY DENIES Defendant’s Motion for 

Reconsideration [54]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2015 

 /s/ Gershwin A Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:14-cv-13651-GAD-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 09/15/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1097