Coach Services, Inc. et al v. Source II, Inc. et al, No. 2:2015cv10740 - Document 39 (E.D. Mich. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 38 Motion for Reconsideration and directing further briefing by 11/1/2016. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Coach Services, Inc. et al v. Source II, Inc. et al Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION COACH INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-10740 v. SOURCE II, INC. and CERHUE ANDRE WAKLER, Individually and d/b/a SOURCE II, INC., Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING On September 13, 2016, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s liability and denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 37.) The court now considers Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. # 38.) The court will deny Defendants’ motion. Subject to the court’s discretion, a motion for reconsideration shall be granted only if the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . . have been misled” and “show[s] that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). The court will not grant motions for reconsideration that “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Defendants argue that this court’s reference to Defendant Walker’s no contest plea constitutes a “palpable defect.” (Dkt. # 38, Pg. ID 627.) Because the court merely referenced the plea in setting out the factual background of the dispute, Defendants Dockets.Justia.com argument is mistaken. The plea does not “pervade[] the entire Opinion,” (id.) it is merely referenced in setting out the factual background and has no impact on the court’s reasoning. Whether one of the five marks identified by Plaintiffs is, in fact, abandoned similarly has no impact on the disposition of the partial summary judgment motion. The court has found that Defendants are liable for trademark infringement – the degree of Defendants’ liability is a damages question that remains unresolved. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the court did not “misapply” Mich. Comp. Law § 429.42, because the court did not “apply” the statute. Plaintiff brings its unfair competition claim under Michigan common law, the reference to the statute served only to sketch out the basic contours of a common law claim. Defendants’ remaining arguments seek to re-litigate the “same issues ruled upon by the court” and must fail. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 38) is DENIED. In a September 26, 2016 informal status conference, Plaintiffs’ indicated that they would seek only statutory damages on their claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief by November 1, 2016 addressing the statutory damages to which they allege they are entitled. s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 30, 2016 2 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, September 30, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\15-10740.COACH.deny.reconsideration.further.briefing.damages.wpd 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
