4.3Reconsideration or Rehearing
Unless a more specific court rule provides otherwise,1 a motion for reconsideration or rehearing must be filed and served no later than 21 days after entry of order disposing of the motion. MCR 2.119(F)(1).
Responses and oral arguments are not permitted unless ordered by the court. MCR 2.119(F)(2).
“The moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of the error.” MCR 2.119(F)(3).
A motion for reconsideration or rehearing tolls the period of time in which a party may file a request for case-evaluation sanctions. See MCR 2.405(D)(6)(iii); and MCR 2.625(F)(2). See also Section 6.5(J)(2).
“The purpose of MCR 2.119(F) is to allow a trial court to immediately correct any obvious mistakes it may have made in ruling on a motion, which would otherwise be subject to correction on appeal, but at a much greater expense to the parties. The time requirement for filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing insures that the motion will be brought expeditiously.” Bers v Bers, 161 Mich App 457, 462 (1987) (at the time this case was decided, the time requirement was seven days) (citation omitted).
Generally, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration that merely presents the same issue ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. MCR 2.119(F)(3). However, the decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the court’s discretion. See id. Accordingly, MCR 2.119(F)(3) “does not categorically prevent a trial court from revisiting an issue even when the motion for reconsideration presents the same issue already ruled upon; in fact, it allows considerable discretion to correct mistakes.” Macomb Co Dep’t of Human Servs v Anderson, 304 Mich App 750, 754 (2014).
No abuse of discretion was found where the trial court denied a plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration that rested “on a legal theory and facts which could have been pled or argued prior to the trial court’s original order” because the motion did not “demonstrate a ‘palpable error by which the court and the parties ha[d] been misled.’” Charbeneau v Wayne Co Gen Hosp, 158 Mich App 730, 733 (1987), quoting MCR 2.119(F)(3).
“‘[R]ehearing [or reconsideration] will not be ordered on the ground merely that a change of members of the bench has either taken place, or is about to occur.’” Hoffman v Barrett, 493 Mich 964, 964 (2013), quoting Peoples v Evening News Ass’n, 51 Mich 11, 21 (1883).
A court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 658-659 (2000). The court also has discretion to limit its reconsideration to the issue it believes warrants further consideration. Id.
1 See, e.g., MCR 2.604(A) or MCR 2.612.