United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
DENISE PAGE HOOD JUDGE
matter is now before the Court on Plaintiffs Edward Griffor
and Mariela Griffor's (“the Griffors”) Motion
for Reconsideration filed on April 14, 2017. (Doc # 25) On
March 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc # 9) and
Granting Defendants BSI Financial (“BSI”),
Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R (“Trust”), and MCM
Capital Partners, LLLP's Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc #
13). (Doc # 23) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
denies the Griffors' Motion for Reconsideration.
Standard of Review
Griffors cite both Local Rule 7.1 and Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that
any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days
after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument
thereon are permitted unless the Court orders otherwise.
Id. at 7.1(h)(2). The Griffors' Motion is timely
Rule 7.1 further states:
(3) Grounds. Generally, and without
restricting the court's discretion, 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. The movant must not
only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the
parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion
have been misled but also show that correcting the defect
will result in a different disposition of the case.
Id. at 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable
defect' is a defect which is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Fleck v. Titan
Tire Corp., 177 F.Supp.2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001). A
motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old
arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the
movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)
(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at
re consideration, not initial consideration”)
(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10,
16 (1st Cir. 1992)).
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
“[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “A district court may grant a Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment only if there is:
‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or
(4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.'”
Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479,
496 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Intera Corp. v.
Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)).
“This standard is not inconsistent with the
‘palpable defect' standard” applied to a
motion for reconsideration. Walled Lake, 469 F.3d at
Defamation Claim Against BSI and Trust
Griffors argue that the Court made a palpable error in its
March 31, 2017 Order because the Court failed to address the
fact that Mariela Griffor was ...