1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

W. ALVIN JACKSON, RITA F. JACKSON,

ANGELA O’MARA, BRIAN DAVIS, KELLI

DAVIS, DAVID PATTERSON, TANJA

DEHOFF, JAMIE HARNETT, JIM

SCHAEFER, LAURA SCHAEFER, CARISSA

ROMAN, DANIEL ROMAN, JANET

ROLLINS and COLETTE GIVINS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MIKE BUTLER, KATHY BUTLER, DANIEL

FRAGEN and PRS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS,

LLC,

Defendants.

___________________________________ /

Case Number: 09-10779

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, filed August 27, 2009. (Doc. No.

24). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.

On July 31, 2009, Plaintiffs moved the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60, for clarification or relief from the July 27, 2009, Judgment, entered by this Court. Plaintiffs

argued that the Court improperly entered a judgement, after the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ lawsuit,

because the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss was a final order and it was not

necessary to enter a judgment. (Pls.’ Mot. 3). Plaintiffs further argued that the judgment “was

factually incorrect because the issues were not ‘duly tried or heard’ and no decision was ever

2:09-cv-10779-PDB-DAS Doc # 25 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 821
2

rendered ‘on the merits.’” (Id.) 

On August 18, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, on the grounds that

the judgment was not erroneously entered, no error appeared on the face of the judgment, and no

other reason to modify the judgment existed. Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Clarification of Judgment, Aug. 18, 2009 (Doc. No. 21). 

In the instant motion, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s August 18, 2009 Opinion

and Order.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g) provides the standards for a motion for

reconsideration, and states:

[T]he 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 have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will

result in a different disposition of the case.

A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mktg.

Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “A trial court may

grant reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) for any of four reasons: (1) because of an

intervening change in the controlling law; (2) because evidence not previously available has become

available; (3) to correct a clear error of law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice.” Hayes v. Norfolk

Southern Corp., 25 Fed. Appx. 308, 315 (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2001) (unpublished).

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a palpable defect, or that correcting the defect would result

in a different disposition of the case. See L.R. 7.1(g). The Court properly entered a judgment,

following its decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. As the Court stated in its August 18, 2009

Opinion and Order, the Court entered a judgment because there are no claims remaining in this case.

2:09-cv-10779-PDB-DAS Doc # 25 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 822
3

The judgment is not factually incorrect. The issues in this case were duly heard and the Court

rendered a decision. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not shown that correcting the alleged defect of

entering the judgment as written would change the disposition of the case. 

Indeed, it appears that Plaintiffs are seeking modification of the judgment solely to avoid

paying costs to Defendants. Plaintiffs prayer for relief states:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and Amend to [sic] the Judgment entered on

July 27, 2009 to state:

This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been duly tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

The Court has ordered that Plaintiff [sic] recover nothing, and no

costs to either party.

(Pls.’ Mot. 4).

Plaintiffs’ desire to avoid costs does not warrant reconsideration of this judgment. The

Court entered a judgment on behalf of Defendants, following Defendants’ successful motion to

dismiss. The judgment contains no error; Defendants may recover costs from Plaintiffs, as provided

by law.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 24).

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 8, 2009

2:09-cv-10779-PDB-DAS Doc # 25 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 823
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 8, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10779-PDB-DAS Doc # 25 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 824