- 1 - 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY TODD KNUDSON, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-CV-14854 

vs. 

 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

M/V AMERICAN SPIRIT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 141] AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 138] 

This matter has come before the court on defendants American 

Steamship Company’s and Liberty Steamship Company’s motion for 

reconsideration of this court’s January 31, 2019 opinion and order granting 

plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 

140). For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides: 

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 
- 2 - 

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. 

Defendants submit two palpable errors in their motion for 

reconsideration. First is that the court failed to adequately address 

defendants’ federal labor law arguments regarding whether defendants 

were legally able to pay plaintiff more than $8 a day in maintenance when 

that was the amount set in the Terms and Conditions. In fact, the court 

considered all of defendants’ arguments in concluding that plaintiff was not 

covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a union. 

Thus, by implication, the court did not accept defendants’ argument that 

federal labor law prevented them from paying a reasonable rate of 

maintenance to plaintiff when union workers would have been bound by the 

rate set by the Terms and Conditions. In finding that plaintiff can seek 

punitive damages, the court has not foreclosed defendants from arguing 

that punitive damages are inappropriate because defendants believed at 

the time they were bound by law to pay the contractually set amount. 

Second, defendants argue that the court failed to address their 

request for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages 

component of plaintiff’s maintenance and cure claim. Indeed, defendants 
- 3 - 

did style their pleading as a response to plaintiff’s motion for partial 

summary judgment and cross-motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF 

No. 138) In granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the 

court concluded that the $8 a day maintenance rate was unenforceable 

and that plaintiff could seek punitive damages for his maintenance claim, 

limited to the two-year period beginning immediately following his accident 

and ending when defendants began paying plaintiff $45 a day. (Order, 

Jan. 17, 2019, ECF No. 140) By implication, the court consequently 

denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment seeking a 

declaration that the contracted for maintenance rate was enforceable. The 

court will correct the record, but notes that this does not result in a different 

disposition of the case. Now, therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ cross-motion for partial 

summary judgment is DENIED. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated: February 26, 2019 

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
- 4 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

February 26, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk