United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF
#28) AND (2) TERMINATING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RESOLUTION (ECF
#29) AS MOOT
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action, pro se Plaintiff Samantha Rajapakse alleges
that Defendant Credit Acceptance Corporation
(“CAC”) violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
(See Compl., ECF #1.) On July 28, 2017, the assigned
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the
“R&R”) in which she (1) concluded that all of
Rajapakse's claims were “subject to final and
binding arbitration” and (2) recommended that the Court
grant CAC's motion to dismiss and dismiss this action
without prejudice so that the parties could arbitrate their
dispute. (R&R, ECF #24 at Pg. ID 180.) Rajapakse did not
file timely objections to the R&R, and the Court adopted
the R&R's proposed disposition of this action on
August 23, 2017. (See ECF #26.)
August 29, 2017, Rajapakse filed a motion for
reconsideration. (See ECF #28.) In that motion,
Rajapakse appears to allege that CAC acted in bad faith while
trying to negotiate a settlement to her dispute, and she asks
the Court to allow her to amend her Complaint so that she can
bring new, additional claims against CAC and its employees.
motion for reconsideration, a movant must demonstrate that
the Court was misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A palpable defect is a defect that is
obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. See
Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich.
1997). The movant must also show that the defect, if
corrected, would result in a different disposition of the
case. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A motion for
reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash old arguments, or
to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could
have presented earlier. See Sault Ste. Marie v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
has not identified a “palpable defect” by which
this Court was misled in either the R&R or the
Court's Order adopting the R&R and dismissing her
Complaint. Moreover, Rajapakse has not demonstrated that
correcting such a defect (if it exists) will result in a
different disposition of the case. See Local Rule
7.1(h). Rajapakse has therefore not persuaded the Court that
reconsideration of its dismissal order or the R&R is
extent Rajapakse asks the Court to allow her to amend her
Complaint, the Court construes that request as one to alter
or amend its dismissal order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). See, e.g., Inge v. Rock Fin.
Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 617-18 (6th Cir. 2002) (construing
post-judgment motion seeking leave to file amended complaint
as a Rule 59(e) motion). “A court may grant a Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend 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.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428
F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). Rule 59(e) motions “are
not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously considered
issues ... and are not the proper vehicle to attempt to
obtain a reversal of judgment by offering the same arguments
previously presented.” Kenneth Henes Special
Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass Industries,
Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 721, 726 (E.D.Mich. 2000).
“This standard is not inconsistent with the
‘palpable defect' standard applied” in the
reconsideration context. Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol.
Schools, 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006).
has failed to show that she is entitled to relief under Rule
59(e). She has not identified any “clear error of law,
” “newly discovered evidence, ” or
“intervening change in controlling law” that
justifies setting aside the judgment and allowing her to
amend her Complaint. Nor has Rajapakse shown a
“manifest injustice” would result if the Court
did not allow her to amend. Rajapakse has therefore not
established that she is entitled to amend her Complaint.
for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Rajapakse's motion to for
reconsideration and other relief (ECF #28) is
 At the same time Rajapakse filed her
motion for reconsideration, she filed a second motion seeking
immediate consideration of her reconsideration motion.
(See ECF #29.) Because the Court is addressing the
reconsideration motion in this Order, it