2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 261 Filed 08/02/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 6440
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`In re: Refrigerant Compressors
`Antitrust Litigation
`
`___________________________/
`
`Case No. 2:09-md-02042
`
`Honorable Sean F. Cox
`United States District Court
`
`ORDER DENYING
`DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`(DOCKET ENTRY NOS. 247 & 255)
`
`On June 13, 2011, this Court issued its Opinion & Order on Defendants’ Joint Motion to
`
`Dismiss Claims by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DP Plaintiffs”). (Docket Entry No. 245, June
`
`13, 2011 Opinion & Order). Among the various rulings in that Opinion & Order, this Court
`
`ruled that: 1) “the only persons or entities that have standing to assert federal antitrust claims in
`
`this action are those persons or entities who directly purchased compressors from a Defendant.
`
`Thus, any named DP Plaintiff who did not purchase compressors from a Defendant lacks
`
`standing and must be dismissed from this action;” and 2) “DP Plaintiffs have not pleaded
`
`fraudulent concealment with particularity and therefore any claims accruing before February 25,
`
`2005 are time-barred.” (Id. at 30).
`
`On June 27, 2011, DP Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration relating to the June
`
`13, 2011 Opinion & Order. (Docket Entry No. 247). DP Plaintiffs filed a slightly different
`
`version of that same motion on June 30, 2011. (Docket Entry No. 255). All Defendants, with
`
`the exception of the Tecumseh Defendants, filed a Joint Response Brief opposing the Motion on
`
`July 14, 2011. (Docket Entry No. 260).
`
`The Court finds that oral argument on the pending motion would not aid the decisional
`
`1
`
`

`
`2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 261 Filed 08/02/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 6441
`
`process. See Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) and (h)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.
`
`The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided upon the briefs. For the reasons
`
`below, the Court shall DENY DP Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
`
`Local Rule 7.1(h) provides the following standard regarding motions for rehearing or
`
`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(h)(3). Here, DP Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court
`
`and the parties have been misled as to either of the issues raised in their motion.
`
`With respect to the standing issue, DP Plaintiffs continue to advance the same or similar
`
`arguments that were made by them in opposing Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. A motion
`
`for reconsideration, however, “is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments.” 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 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998); Hamilton v.
`
`Gansheimer, 536 F.Supp.2d 825, 842 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (Courts should not reconsider prior
`
`decision where the motion for reconsideration renews arguments already considered.); 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.”).
`
`DP Plaintiffs also ask this Court to reconsider its ruling regarding fraudulent
`
`concealment. This Court’s Opinion & Order ruled that “DP Plaintiffs have not pleaded
`
`2
`
`

`
`2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 261 Filed 08/02/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 6442
`
`fraudulent concealment with particularity and therefore any claims accruing before February 25,
`
`2005 are time-barred.” (June 13, 2011 Opinion & Order at 30). The Opinion & Order further
`
`explained:
`
`The Court notes that DP Plaintiffs made a blanket request in the closing
`paragraph of their Response Brief, asking the Court to allow them to file an
`amended MAC “[s]hould the Court be inclined to grant any part of Defendants’
`motion.” They did not, however, file a motion to amend or submit a proposed
`amended complaint – even after Defendants filed their Reply Brief noting their
`failure to do so. Moreover, DP Plaintiffs have not adequately explained, in either
`their Response Brief or at the May 26, 2011 hearing, how they could file an
`amended MAC that would plead fraudulent concealment with the requisite
`particularity. The Court therefore denies DP Plaintiffs’ request.
`
`(Id. at 29).
`
`Now, in their Motion for Reconsideration, DP Plaintiffs ask the Court to “reconsider its
`
`ruling that DP Plaintiffs may not amend their Complaint to re-plead fraudulent concealment.”
`
`(Motion for Reconsideration at 2). In doing so, DP Plaintiffs have still not submitted a proposed
`
`MAC that they believe would plead fraudulent concealment with the requisite particularity.
`
`Rather, DP Plaintiffs identify a few additional allegations they believe support their claim of
`
`fraudulent concealment – most of which go to their assertion that Defendants held secret or
`
`clandestine meetings. This Court continues to believe that “allegations regarding Defendants’
`
`secret or clandestine meetings, or their alleged failure to divulge the conspiracy, are
`
`insufficient.” (June 13, 2011 Opinion & Order at 25). Moreover, DP Plaintiffs have not
`
`identified any allegations they could add to their complaint that would establish due diligence.
`
`(June 13, 2011 Opinion & Order at 29)(“The Court finds that DP Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
`
`pleaded due diligence under existing Sixth Circuit authority.”). Thus, the Court concludes that
`
`the requested amendment would be futile.
`
`3
`
`

`
`2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 261 Filed 08/02/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 6443
`
`Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that DP Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is
`
`DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`S/Sean F. Cox
`Sean F. Cox
`United States District Judge
`
`Dated: August 2, 2011
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
`August 2, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
`
`S/Jennifer Hernandez
`Case Manager
`
`4