STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

PEOPLE OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF WEST BLOOMFIELD,
Appellee/Plaintiff, Circuit Court Case No. 07-008602-AR
Hon. Rae Lee Chabot
vs.
District Court Case No. 06WB83588
KEVIN AARON LANDAU, Hon. Diane D. D’Agostini
Appellant/Defendant,
_______________________________________/
SHERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C.
BY: NICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI, ESQ. (P63188)
Attorney for Appellee/Plaintiff
30700 Telegraph, Suite 3420
Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4590
(248) 540-3366 Telephone
(248) 540-5959 Fax
ARTHUR H. LANDAU, ESQ. (P16381)
Attorney for Appellant/Defendant
29777 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2500
Southfield, MI 48035
(248) 948-0893 TELEPHONE
________________________________________/
APPELLEE/PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO PRAECIPE AND ORAL
ARGUMENT ON APPELLANT/DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

NOW COMES, Niccolas J. Grochowski, Esq., (P63188), of the law firm of SHERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C., on behalf of the Appellee/Plaintiff, People of the Township of West Bloomfield, and in support of its Objection status unto this Honorable Court the following:
1. That on March 28, 2007, Appellant/Defendant filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with this Honorable Court, from the 48th District Court.
2. That on April 18, 2007, this Honorable Court granted the Appellant/Defendant’s Application for Leave to Appeal.
3. That on November 29, 2007 this Honorable Court entered an Order denying the Appeal, thereby affirming the District Court decision.
4. That on November 29, 2007, this Honorable Court also granted a stay in the matter for 90 days to allow the Appellant/Defendant an opportunity to file an Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeals.
5. That on January 24, 2008 the Court of Appeals denies the Application for Leave to Appeal.
6. That the Appellant/Defendant has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration with this Honorable Court and has filed a Praecipe on the Motion for February 20, 2008.
7. That the Praecipe filed by Appellant/Defendant certifies that the Attorney for Appellant/Defendant made contact with the undersigned of February 13, 2008, to request concurrence in the relief sought, however, no such contact was actually made.
8. That the Praecipe seeks oral argument on the Appellant/Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, however, MCR 2.119(F)(2) unequivocally states that there is no oral argument in a Motion for Reconsideration.
9. That pursuant to MCR 2.119(F)(1), a Motion for reconsideration must be served and filled no later than 14 days after entry of an order disposing of the motion, and more than 14 days has passed because the Order in this case was entered on November 29, 2007.
10. That Appellee/Plaintiff is unavailable on February 20, 2008 and is prevented by MCR 2.119(F)(2) from responding to the Motion for Reconsideration.
11. That the November 27, 2007 Order of this Honorable Court and the Order Denying the Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeals, effectively closes the case with this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, the Appellee/Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to refuse to schedule the matter for motion hearing or refuse to hear any oral argument by Appellant/Defendant for the reasons stated herein, immediately remand the case back to the District Court, and assess costs so unjustly incurred for the Appellant/Defendant’s blatant disregard for the Court Rules.
SHERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C.

________________________________
NICCOLAS J. GROCHOWSKI (P63188)
Attorneys for Defendant
30700 Telegraph, Suite 3420
Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4590
(248) 540-3366 Telephone
Dated: February 13, 2008