Summary
In Kelmendi, the plaintiffs are Kelmendi individually and Djonovic as personal representative of the Estate of Prela Djonovic (Prela),and they assert claims arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against T. Hogan (Hogan) as well as a Monell claim against the Township.
Summary of this case from Djonovic v. SepterOpinion
20-12354
11-15-2023
JOHN KELMENDI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. T. HOGAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER [#s 58, 59]
DENISE PAGE HOOD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF Nos. 58 and 59], which the Court considers as Motions for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Extending Scheduling Order [ECF No. 54].
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration of non-final orders must be filed within 14 days after entry of the order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). No response to the motion and no oral argument are permitted unless the Court Orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Motions for reconsideration may be brought upon the following grounds:
(A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the mistake was based on the record and law before the court at the time of its prior decision;
(B) An intervening change in controlling law warrants a different outcome; or
(C) New facts warrant a different outcome and the new facts could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)).
The Stipulation and Order for Extension of Scheduling Order [ECF No. 54] was entered on February 1, 2023. As indicated in the Order, the extension was stipulated to by the parties. At that time, Plaintiffs were represented by counsel. Plaintiffs, now proceeding pro se, filed their “Objections” on July 21, 2023 and August 14, 2023, more than five months from the entry of the February 1, 2023 Order, well beyond the 14 days required to file a motion for reconsideration under the local rules set forth above. The Court will not consider the untimely motions. Even if the Court were to consider the untimely motions, as noted, the extension of dates were agreed to by the parties. The Court did not make a mistake on entering the order extending the dates in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF Nos. 58, 59], considered as Motions for Reconsideration of the Stipulation and Order for Extension of Scheduling Order [ECF No. 54], are DENIED.