1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Wesco Distribution, Inc., 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13014

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Jenkins Construction, Inc., and 

Piping Components, Inc.,

Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs,

v.

Bayview Electric Company, LLC,

Third Party Defendant.

____________________________________/

OPINION & ORDER

DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This action arises out of a construction project. Following the close of discovery,

Plaintiff Wesco Distribution, Inc. (“Wesco”) filed a motion seeking summary judgment in its

favor as to its claim under the payment bond in the amount of $118,610.79, along with the

attorney fees it has incurred in this action. (Docket Entry No. 62). 

In Opinion & Order issued on October 25, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiff Wesco

Distribution’s Motion for Summary Judgment and awarded it $60,021.00 for the attorney fees its

incurred in this action. (Docket Entry No. 86). On November 4, 2010, this Court issued a

Judgment in favor of Wesco. 

On November 8, 2010, Defendants Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”),
2

Jenkins Construction, Inc. (“Jenkins”) and Piping Components, Inc. (“PCI”) filed a “Motion for

Rehearing and Reconsideration.” (Docket Entry No. 88). The Court finds that oral argument

would not significantly aid the decisional process. See Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), U.S. District Court,

Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided without

oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Reconsideration shall be DENIED.

Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) provides the following standard regarding motions for

reconsideration:

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

have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different

disposition of the case.

L.R. 7.1(g)(3).

In their Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants: 1) continue to advance arguments

regarding retention; and 2) request a hearing on attorney fees and costs.

A motion for reconsideration, however,“is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old

arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not.” Smith v.

Mount Pleasant Schools, 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie

Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 357, 374 (6th Cir. 1998); see also, Scottsdale

Insur. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008) (“We have found issues to be waived

when they are raised for the first time in motions for reconsideration.”); Hamilton v.

Gansheimer, 536 F.Supp.2d 825, 842 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (“Courts should not reconsider prior

decision where the motion for reconsideration either renews arguments already considered or
3

proffers new arguments that could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered during

the initial consideration of the issue”). 

Defendants have already briefed their various positions as to retention in the numerous

briefs that were filed prior to this Court’s October 25, 2010 Opinion & Order. In their Motion

for Reconsideration, Defendants simply re-hash arguments that have already been presented to,

and rejected by, this Court.

Defendants also ask the Court to hold a hearing on attorney fees – but provide no

explanation as to why this request is being made for the first time in a motion for reconsideration

following entry of judgment – especially given that Defendants had the opportunity to challenge

the attorney fees requested but declined to do so.

On September 8, 2010, this Court issued an order for supplemental briefing. (Docket

Entry No. 76). In that Order, this Court also ordered Wesco to specify “the amount of attorney

fees that Wesco seeks in this action,” and attach appropriate support for any amount requested. 

(Id.). The Order further provided that Hartford and Jenkins/JCI may file a brief responding to

Wesco’s brief regarding attorneys fees, within seven days after the filing of that brief.

On September 15, 2010, Wesco filed a supplemental brief in compliance with this

Court’s Order. (Docket Entry No. 79). Wesco specified that it is seeking $65,527.62 in attorney

fees and costs that it incurred in this action and provided documentation for the fees and costs

requested.

Hartford and Jenkins/PCI filed two separate supplemental briefs. (Docket Entry Nos. 77

& 78). Neither brief, however, addressed Wesco’s request for attorney fees or challenged the

fees requested. Thus, although this Court’s Order expressly provided that they could do so, 
4

Hartford and Jenkins/PCI did not file a brief challenging Wesco’s requested attorney fees. The

Court therefore finds that Defendants have waived any arguments opposing the requested fees.

Moreover, even if these arguments were not waived, the Motion for Reconsideration

would not warrant a hearing on attorney fees in any event. Indeed, the motion itself does not

challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rate requested or any specific hours incurred. 

Defendants’ motion simply makes a blanket assertion that the fees awarded were excessive, but

does not identify any fees they believe were unnecessarily incurred or why they believe the fees

were excessive. Rather, Defendants simply attach a one-page table as an exhibit, apparently

listing various billing entries that they believe are excessive – without any explanation as to why

or how any entry is excessive.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Entry No.

88) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 22, 2010

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

November 22, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager