United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
April 16, 2015
KRISTEN LAUES and WILLIE M. GHOLSTON, Plaintiffs,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and BLANK ROME LLP, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' "OBJECTION" TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 26, 2014 OPINION AND ORDER
LINDA V. PARKER, District Judge.
On February 24, 2014, Plaintiffs Kristen Laues ("Ms. Laues") and Willie M. Gholston ("Ms. Gholston") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this lawsuit against Defendants, challenging Defendants' actions in relation to their attempt to collect funds from Ms. Gholston allegedly due on a mortgage loan. Defendants thereafter filed motions to dismiss, which this Court granted in an opinion and order entered November 26, 2014. (ECF No. 44.) On December 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an "objection" to the Court's decision (ECF No. 46), which this Court will treat as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)
Pursuant to Rule 7.1, a motion for reconsideration will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates a palpable defect, the correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain." Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). "It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration." Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F.Supp.2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not." Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)). In fact, Local Rule 7.1 provides that "[g]enerally... 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. LR 7.1(h)(3).
Plaintiffs assert most of the same arguments in their objection that they raised previously in response to Defendants' motions to dismiss or other previously filed pleadings (such as, Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions). To the extent Plaintiffs assert new arguments, they are frivolous.
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' "Objection" to this Court's November 26, 2014 decision is DENIED.