Opinion ID: 613145
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration

Text: The plaintiffs next argue that [t]he District Court erred in granting the motion for dismissal by Defendant Newmont Mining and den[ying] Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, after Plaintiffs had filed a Motion for Leave to File their Third Amended Complaint, and such proposed Third Amended Complaint was attached as an exhibit to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of Defendant Newmont Mining Corporation. Pl. Br. in No. 09-2117 at xxix. The plaintiffs appear to argue that the proposed Third Amended Complaint would have cured the lack of personal jurisdiction over Newmont. As an initial matter, the district court's grant of Newmont's motion to dismiss was not improper in light of the Third Amended Complaint because the motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint was not filed until four days after the district court's order. Compare R.61 (Op. July 15, 2009) with R.64 (Motion for Leave July 19, 2009). The district court therefore cannot be said to have erred by not taking note of a document that had not yet been filed. Instead, the plaintiffs' argument can relate only to the denial of its motion for reconsideration. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a motion for reconsideration, except when the underlying ruling involves the grant of summary judgment. Gage Prods. Co. v. Henkel Corp., 393 F.3d 629, 637 (6th Cir.2004). A motion for reconsideration is governed by the local rules in the Eastern District of Michigan, which provide that the movant must show both that there is a palpable defect in the opinion and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(g). [5] The local rule also specifically states that merely presenting the same issues that the court previously ruled on is not an acceptable ground for reconsideration. The district court in this case denied reconsideration on the ground that the plaintiffs did not identify any facts that the Court overlooked in analyzing Newmont's contacts with the forum, nor do they identify any errors in the Court's legal analysis. R.77 (Op. July 31, 2009 at 2). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration. On appeal, just as before the district court, the plaintiffs have failed to identify any facts that the district court overlooked in holding that personal jurisdiction over Newmont was lacking. The plaintiffs merely point to the proffered Third Amended Complaint, which, they say, bears on jurisdiction, as some of the basis [ sic ] for jurisdiction were amplified and clarified in that proposed complaint. Pl. Br. in No. 09-2117 at xxix-xxx. This argument has not been developed at all, and we consider it therefore waived. See Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir.2005) ([I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.) (quotation marks omitted). In addition, the proposed Third Amended Complaint provides no basis for personal jurisdiction over Newmont, because it provides no allegations of any additional contacts of Newmont with the State of Michigan. [6] Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.