UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CITY OF RIVERVIEW,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-11047 

v.

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL

324 PENSION FUND,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION/RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Clarification brought

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) filed

June 10, 2015. On May 28, 2015, the Court entered an Opinion and Order remanding

the action back to the Oakland County Circuit Court. The Court considers the motion

under Local Rule 7.1(h) since there was no judgment entered as required under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e). Defendant also has not shown that the Court’s Opinion and Order

was based on a mistake, inadvertence, a surprise, or an excusable neglect as required

under Rule 60(b)(1).

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

for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. 

2:15-cv-11047-DPH-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 07/10/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 292
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument thereon

shall be allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). 

Defendant’s motion is timely filed. The Local Rule further states:

(3) Grounds. 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.

E.D. Mich. LR 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

brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.

1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial

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

It is noted that as to the 29 U.S.C. § 1451(c) issue, this Court noted that in its

opinion that, “the Fund’s defense of its right to collect withdrawal liability against

River view under ERISA, if any, may be reviewed by the State court, which has

concurrent jurisdiction over such a claim by the Fund.” (Doc. No. 18, Pg ID

265)(italics added). The Court’s opinion does not require any further clarification. 

Defendant seeks an advisory ruling from this Court regarding issues which may or

2

2:15-cv-11047-DPH-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 07/10/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 293
may not be raised before the State Court, which now has jurisdiction over the matter. 

The Court declines to do so.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Clarification brought under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) filed June 10,

2015 (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: July 10, 2015

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

record on July 10, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-11047-DPH-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 07/10/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 294