-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLY ELIAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-13527

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.

PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER,

RIVERS & GOLDEN, P.C., et al., 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

On November 10, 2010, this court dismissed plaintiff’s claims under the Michigan

Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS §37.1101 et seq. (PWDCRA)

the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (FMLA), and the Americans

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA). However, the court provided plaintiff

an opportunity to amend her complaint to allege sufficient specificity to state a claim under

the FMLA. The court’s order required plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December

3, 2010, however plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline imposed by

the court. On April 11, 2011, this court denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to

file an amended complaint, concluding that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time was

filed nearly three months past the deadline imposed by the court. 

Plaintiff has filed “Objections to Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the

2:09-cv-13527-GCS-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/22/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 167
-2-

Deadline to File an Amended Complaint and Motion for Relief from Judgment Entered on

April 11, 2011, Under Rule 60.” The court construes plaintiff’s present motion as a motion

for reconsideration under E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). 

Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan provides:

[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same

issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,

shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable

defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that

a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof.

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which this

court has been misled, the correction of which will result in a different disposition of this

case. 

Plaintiff argues that this court erred in denying her an extension of time because she

should have been granted an extension under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect and/or

under Rule 60(b)(3) for defendants’ purported fraud and misconduct. Plaintiff incorrectly

invokes Rule 60 in support of her argument. At the time plaintiff moved for an extension to

file an amended complaint, the court had not yet entered a final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) (“Grounds for Relief from Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.”) In any event,

plaintiff did not attach a copy of a proposed amended complaint to her motion for extension

of time, nor has she identified specifically how she will rectify the pleading deficiencies

discussed in this court’s November 10, 2010 order either in the present motion or the motion

for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [#33] is DENIED. 

2:09-cv-13527-GCS-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/22/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 168
-3-

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2012

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

March 22, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also to

Kelly Elias at 44480 Heydenreich Road, Clinton Township, MI

48038.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13527-GCS-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/22/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 169