United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
March 12, 2015
James T. Gentry, et al., Plaintiffs,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Michael J. Hluchaniuk, Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
Arthur J. Tarnow, Senior United States District Judge
On June 16, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss  and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint . At the hearing, the Court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to contest the foreclosure of their home due to the expiration of the statutory redemption period. The Court further held that Plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient irregularity in the foreclosure process to invoke an exception to this rule. On June 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint . The Court entered a Judgment  the same day. On July 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration .
“A district court may alter or amend a judgment under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 59(e) to correct a clear error of law; account for newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law; or otherwise prevent manifest injustice.” Heil Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 722, 728 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)). “Generally … 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.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court “ignored” Plaintiffs’ arguments concerning an irregularity in the foreclosure procedure: namely, the foreclosing entity’s lack of standing to foreclose. Relatedly, Plaintiffs assert that the Court “failed to review or apply” the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2013), which Plaintiffs cite for the proposition that a party lacks standing to foreclose if it is not entitled to collect a debt. However, Plaintiffs presented these arguments in their Complaint  (citing Glazer), in their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , and at the hearing. The Court did not ignore the arguments. Indeed, at the hearing, the Court confirmed with Plaintiffs’ counsel that “the impropriety alleged … is that [Wells Fargo] was trying to collect on a debt that was no longer owed because they had been paid by Freddie Mac.” For the reasons stated by the Court when it previously rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court now finds the arguments insufficient to warrant alteration or amendment of the judgment under Rule 59(e). See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration  is DENIED.