UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

COACH INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOURCE II, INC. and CERHUE ANDRE

WAKLER, Individually and d/b/a SOURCE II,

INC.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 15-10740

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

On September 13, 2016, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s liability and denied Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 37.) The court now considers Defendants’ Motion for

Reconsideration. (Dkt. # 38.) The court will deny Defendants’ motion.

Subject to the court’s discretion, a motion for reconsideration shall be granted

only if the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the court and the parties 

. . . have been misled” and “show[s] that correcting the defect will result in a different

disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). The court will not grant motions for

reconsideration that “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D.

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

Defendants argue that this court’s reference to Defendant Walker’s no contest

plea constitutes a “palpable defect.” (Dkt. # 38, Pg. ID 627.) Because the court merely

referenced the plea in setting out the factual background of the dispute, Defendants

2:15-cv-10740-RHC-APP Doc # 39 Filed 09/30/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 646
argument is mistaken. The plea does not “pervade[] the entire Opinion,” (id.) it is merely

referenced in setting out the factual background and has no impact on the court’s

reasoning.

Whether one of the five marks identified by Plaintiffs is, in fact, abandoned

similarly has no impact on the disposition of the partial summary judgment motion. The

court has found that Defendants are liable for trademark infringement – the degree of

Defendants’ liability is a damages question that remains unresolved.

Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the court did not “misapply” Mich. Comp. Law

§ 429.42, because the court did not “apply” the statute. Plaintiff brings its unfair

competition claim under Michigan common law, the reference to the statute served only

to sketch out the basic contours of a common law claim.

Defendants’ remaining arguments seek to re-litigate the “same issues ruled upon

by the court” and must fail. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 38) is

DENIED. 

In a September 26, 2016 informal status conference, Plaintiffs’ indicated that they

would seek only statutory damages on their claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief by November 1, 2016 addressing the statutory

damages to which they allege they are entitled.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 30, 2016

2

2:15-cv-10740-RHC-APP Doc # 39 Filed 09/30/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 647
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 30, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\15-10740.COACH.deny.reconsideration.further.briefing.damages.wpd

3

2:15-cv-10740-RHC-APP Doc # 39 Filed 09/30/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 648