Palakurthi v. Wayne County, Michigan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NAGESH PALAKURTHI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-cv-10707
v. 	Honorable Linda V. Parker
WAYNE COUNTY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 95)
This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff Nagesh Palakurthi’s
motion for reconsideration of this Court’s decision denying his motion for
summary judgment without prejudice. On November 5, 2025, the Court denied
Palakurthi’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because
Defendant Wayne County demonstrated that discovery was needed to respond to
Palakurthi’s claims. (ECF No. 92.) Palakurthi argues that discovery in fact is not
needed, as Sixth Circuit and Michigan Supreme Court precedent establish the
County’s liability.
Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), motions for
reconsideration of non-final orders may be granted on only three grounds: (1) a
mistake of the court “based on the record and law before the court at the time of its
Case 2:21-cv-10707-LVP-CI ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 2

2
prior decision” if correcting the mistake would change the outcome of the prior
decision; (2) “[a]n intervening change in controlling law warrants a different
outcome”; or (3) “[n]ew facts warrant a different outcome and the new facts could
not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.” Id.
Palakurthi fails to demonstrate a ground for relief. Most significantly, while the
County may have illegally retained the surplus proceeds from the sale of the
subject property, there are facts requiring discovery to determine Palakurthi’s
interest in the property at the time of the taking. In other words, the County may
be liable for a taking in violation of the United States Constitution, but there
remains a question as to whom the County is liable.
The County demonstrated through an affidavit its need for discovery on this
issue. Pursuant to Rule 56(d), a court may deny a summary judgment motion
when discovery is needed to respond to the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Palakurthi’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No.
95) is DENIED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 10, 2025
Case 2:21-cv-10707-LVP-CI ECF No. 96, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 2