“A motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall be denied.” (cleaned up)
How later courts described this case
- “A motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall be denied.” (cleaned up)
- “[A] motion to reconsider should not be used to re-litigate issues previously considered.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
EASTERN DIVISION
PHYLLIS BALL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action 2:16-cv-282
v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
JOHN KASICH, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Guardian’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
493) of this Court’s Opinion and Order (ECF No. 486) that granted in part and denied in part
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 353, 354, 355). Based on the following, the Court
DENIES the Guardian’s Motion. (ECF No. 493.)
I.
This case involves two groups of individuals with developmental disabilities who are not
satisfied with Ohio’s administration of its developmental-disability system. One group,
Plaintiffs and Disability Rights Ohio, filed this case alleging that Ohio’s system violates federal
law because it is allegedly too reliant on Intermediate Care Facilities (“ICFs”) at the expense of
integration into the community for disability services.
The other group, who intervened as representatives of individuals who prefer institutional
care in ICFs (“Guardians”), alleges that Ohio’s system violates the same federal law because it is
fails to inform people of the ICF choice, leaving them only the option of community-based care
through waivers or wait lists for those waivers.
A. Initiation of this Lawsuit
On March 31, 2016, Disability Rights Ohio filed this case on behalf of six individually
named Plaintiffs and the Ability Center of Greater Toledo seeking declarative and injunctive
relief against and the Directors of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, the Ohio
Department of Medicaid, and Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (together “State of
Ohio”) and the Governor of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio’s administration, management,
and funding of its service system for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities such
as themselves put them at serious risk of segregation and institutionalization in violation of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq. and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.2 as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). Plaintiffs also moved under Title XIX of the Social
Security Act (“Medicaid Act”), 42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.,
The Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental Disabilities (“County
Boards”) moved to intervene, which was opposed by Plaintiffs. (ECF Nos. 68, 73.) After full
briefing (ECF No. 79), this Court permitted the County Boards to intervene (ECF No. 261),
adding them to the existing Defendants.
The Guardians, representing individuals who prefer institutional care in ICFs, also
moved to intervene. (Mot. Intervene 5, ECF No. 107; Individual Guardian Docs., ECF Nos. 123,
125–29, 138, 139, 141–44, 146–48, 152–53, 155, 160, 161, 166–70, 172–77, 182–86, 192–220,
223–32, 234–41, 243–45, 247–49, 251–60). Defendants supported the Guardians’ request to
intervene, but only for the purpose of opposing Plaintiffs’ request for class certification. (ECF
No. 130.) Plaintiffs opposed intervention. (ECF No. 131.) The Court granted intervention to
the Guardians in July 2017. (Opinion and Order, ECF No. 261.)
B. The Guardians’ Crossclaims
The Guardians filed a Third-Party Complaint with Crossclaims against the State of Ohio,
the Governor of Ohio, and the Intervenor County Boards. (ECF No. 326.) The Guardians
alleged that Ohio has systematically denied ICF services, by failing, in their view, to assure that
individuals who qualify for ICF services are informed of that qualification so that they may be
provided that ICF service if they so choose. Guardians aver that the County Boards routinely fail
to provide information about ICFs to eligible individuals so that the individuals know they have
a choice to reside in an ICF, and instead only provide information related to the individual’s
qualification for waiver services, i.e., community-based options or wait lists for community-
based options.
The State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards, all moved for dismissal
of the Guardians’ crossclaims. (ECF No. 353, 354, 355.) After full briefing, and at the request
of the parties, the Court stayed decision on the motions to dismiss so that all parties could engage
in settlement negotiations. Following extensive settlement negotiations, all parties entered into a
settlement as a complete and final resolution of all matters. The Court granted the unopposed
request of the Plaintiff Class, Defendants, and the County Boards for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement Agreement (ECF Nos. 396, 407, 408) on October 18, 2019 (ECF
No. 409).
The following month, the Guardians withdrew from their agreement to settle. At the
parties’ request, the Court vacated the stay on the motions to dismiss of the State of Ohio, the
Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards. The Court issued its decision that dismissed the
Guardians’ claims brought pursuant to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and permitted to go
forward the claim filed under the Medicaid Act. The Guardian’s ask the Court to reconsider its
dismissal of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. (ECF No. 493.) That motion is fully
briefed. (Def.s’ Mem. in Opp., ECF No. 499; Guardians’ Reply, ECF No. 500).
II.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders, the authority for a district court to hear such motions is
found in both the common law and in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 Fed. Appx. 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004)
Rodriguez, 89 Fed. Appx. at 959. A district court’s authority to reconsider its previous orders
has been recognized to afford such relief as justice requires. Id. 952. Traditionally, courts will
find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change
of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice. Id. (citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D. Ohio
1998)).
III.
The Guardians do not offer any intervening change in law or newly available evidence.
Instead, they argue that the decision dismissing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims
constituted error “[b]ecause the Court considered Guardians’ claims as mischaracterized by
defendants.” (Reply at 3, ECF No. 500.) They maintain that “[w]hen properly considered,
Guardians state valid, straightforward ADA (and Rehabilitation Act) claims.” Id. The
guardians, however, merely restate the arguments this Court already considered and rejected.
Motions for reconsideration are not substitutes for appeal nor are they vehicles
to rehash rejected arguments. Savage v. United States, 102 Fed. Appx. 20, 23 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“A motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the Court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall be denied.” (cleaned up)); Am. Marietta
Corp. v. Essroc Cement Corp., 59 Fed.Appx. 668, 671 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[A] motion to reconsider
should not be used to re-litigate issues previously considered.”).
IV.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Guardian’s Motion for Reconsideration.
(ECF No. 493.) The remaining dispositive motions (ECF No. 547, 548) directed at the
remaining claim will be considered by the Court forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/14/2022 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND. A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE