1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACEY SHURES and JOHN SHURES, Case No. 09-10514

Plaintiffs, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

v. United States District Judge

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois 

insurance company,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

OPINION & ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OR REHEARING [Doc. No. 23] 

Plaintiffs Tracy and John Shures (“Plaintiffs”) bring this cause of action for benefits

under the Michigan No-Fault Act against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company (“State Farm”). On September 18, 2009, the Court granted the summary for the

Defendant in this matter [See Doc. No. 21], and entered an order dismissing this action with

prejudice. [See Doc. No. 22]. The matter is currently before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “Motion

for Reconsideration or Rehearing” [Doc. No. 23]. The Court declines to hear oral argument

pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g)(2). For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs’

motion [Doc. No. 23]. 

The Court’s local rule regarding motions for reconsideration states, in pertinent part: 

Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant

motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely presents 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 have been misled but must also show that correcting the defect will result

in a different disposition of the case. 

2:09-cv-10514-SFC-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 127
2

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3) (emphasis added).

In this case, the Plaintiffs argue that three separate “palpable defects” exist in the Court’s

September 18, 2009 Opinion & Order: 1) that a “tapering off” of benefits did not happen in Mr.

Shures’ case [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 23, p.2]; 2) that hourly attendant care benefits were never

“ended altogether” in Mr. Shures’ case [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 23, p.4]; and 3) that the jury in the

prior lawsuit between the parties did not find that Mr. Shures’ injuries did not arise out of his

January 2, 2000 automobile accident. [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 23, p.4]. 

With respect to the Plaintiffs’ first two arguments, assuming arguendo that a “tapering

off” of Mr. Shures’ benefits did not occur and that hourly attendant care benefits were never

“ended altogether,” correcting these defects would not “result in a different disposition of the

case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3).

With respect to the Plaintiffs’ final argument, regarding whether the jury in the prior

lawsuit found that Mr. Shures’ injuries did not arise out of his January 2, 2000 automobile

accident, this argument “merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the court,” E.D. Mich.

L.R. 7.1(g)(3) in its September 18, 2009 Opinion & Order. 

As such, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing”

[Doc. No. 23]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 5, 2009

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

November 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

2:09-cv-10514-SFC-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 128
3

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10514-SFC-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 129