UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY HENDEE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF PUTNAM,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-14623

DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL J. KOMIVES

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION [15]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration of Order Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [15]. The Motion was timely filed within ten days of

the Court’s entry of the final Order [13] and Judgment [14] in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d);

Local R. 7.1(g)(1).

As Plaintiffs observe, “[t]he decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the

discretion of the court.” See Yuba Natural Res. Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583. Local

Rule 7.1, Motion Practice, provides that:

[g]enerally, . . . 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 have been misled but also show that correcting the

defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

Local R. 7.1(g)(3). 

Here, Plaintiffs propose that the Court’s ruling was based on two “palpable defect[s],” the

correction of which would result in a denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [5].

First, Plaintiffs argue that the ruling reflected the Court’s mistaken belief that Plaintiffs were
“obligated to exhaust potential remedies to the Michigan Supreme Court in order to ripen their

federal takings claim.” Second, Plaintiffs argue that their federal action should not have been barred

on the basis of their failure to “ma[k]e an England reservation in their state court action against the

Township.” Id. at 9. Plaintiffs provide citations to Sixth Circuit case law to support their

assignments of error.

As directed by this Court’s Order [16], Defendants have filed a Response [18] to Plaintiffs’

Motion [15]. Therein, Defendants argue that “[t]he state court judgment is res judicata and is

entitled to full faith and credit even though an appeal is pending before the Michigan Supreme

Court,” and that under Michigan law, “[P]laintiffs are not entitled to split their state and federal

claims arising from the same regulatory action by the township.”

The Court having reviewed the parties pleadings and the motion hearing transcript, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration of

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [15] is GRANTED. A written opinion

will follow, clarifying the Court’s rulings on those issues raised in the parties’ post-judgment filings

but not adequately preserved on the record of the previous motion hearing. The Court will set

further conferences or argument as necessary.

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: March 31, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on March
31, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LISA M. WARE 

Case Manager