United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Judge Mona K. Majzoub
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration of
the Court's opinion and order granting Plaintiff's
motion for attorney fees (the “Opinion”) (ECF No.
148), which adopted Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub's
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”.) (ECF No.
141.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion
for reconsideration is denied.
facts giving rise to this motion have been set forth
previously in opinions by this Court (ECF Nos. 55, 112) and
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Tyson v. Sterling Car Rental, Inc., 836 F.3d 571,
574-75 (6th Cir. 2016.) In short, this is a consumer credit
case. On August 10, 2013, Defendants Sterling Rental, Al
Chami, and Rami Kamil sold a car to Plaintiff SeTara Tyson,
and then two days later asked her to return to the dealership
with the car. She did, at which point Defendants demanded
that she pay $1, 500 extra to keep the car. The parties
dispute what happened next, and what options Plaintiff was
given, but ultimately Plaintiff left the dealership without
the car. She sued Defendants under multiple theories of
liability two days later (ECF No. 1), and subsequently
amended her complaint. (ECF No. 32.)
claims and their dispositions, which are relevant to the
award of attorney fees for Plaintiff and underlie
Defendants' motion, are as follows.
Plaintiff sued Defendants for common law and statutory
conversion. (ECF No. 32.) The Court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment on both claims. (ECF No. 43.)
Plaintiff appealed the ruling as to statutory conversion
only, and prevailed. Tyson v. Sterling Rental, 836
F.3d 571, 580-83 (6th Cir. 2016). After remand, Plaintiff
filed a motion for summary judgment as to statutory
conversion, which the Court denied finding a genuine issue of
material fact existed. (ECF No. 112.) The parties later filed
a stipulated order of dismissal as to this claim, which
closed the case. (ECF No. 120.)
Plaintiff sued Defendants under the Michigan Motor Vehicle
Sales Finance Act (“MVSFA”), Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 492.101 et seq., and the Michigan Credit
Reform Act (“MCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §
445.1851 et seq. Plaintiff prevailed on summary
judgment as to these claims (ECF No. 55) and no appeals were
Plaintiff sued Defendants under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et
seq., and prevailed on summary judgment. (ECF No. 55.)
Defendants appealed this ruling, and the Sixth Circuit
affirmed Plaintiffs prevailing party status. Sterling
Rental 836 F.3d at 580.
Plaintiff sued Defendants for injunctive relief under the
ECOA, and the Court initially denied her motion for summary
judgment for this form of relief. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff
successfully appealed this decision. Sterling
Rental, 836 F.3d at 580. After remand, plaintiff
voluntarily withdrew these claims. (See ECF Nos.
Plaintiff sued Defendants under the Truth in Lending Act
(“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.
She successfully defended against Defendants' summary
judgment motion on this claim (ECF No. 43), and the parties
later resolved the TILA claim through stipulation. (ECF No.
Finally, Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach of contract and
for violation of the Uniform Commercial Code
(“UCC”), and successfully defended against
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 43.)
The parties later resolved this claim by stipulation. (ECF
2015, before the appeals set forth above were taken,
Plaintiff moved for attorney fees after achieving success on
her ECOA, MVSFA, and MCRA claims. (ECF No. 70.) The Court
granted her motion but reduced her fees by twenty percent to
account for settling certain claims and for her then-lack of
success on her conversion claims. (ECF No. 80.) The parties
cross-appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the attorney
fee award in part and reversed in part on the same day that
it issued an opinion reversing and remanding Defendants'
summary judgment on Plaintiffs' conversion claims.
Tyson v. Al Chami, 659 Fed.Appx. 346 (6th Cir.
2016). Specifically, the Sixth Circuit in Al Chami
affirmed this Court's lodestar calculation but reversed
the twenty percent reduction in fees in light of its holding
on the same day. Id. at 349.
remand, the parties stipulated to the entry of an order
permitting Plaintiff to file a new petition for attorney fees
(ECF No. 120), which she timely filed (ECF No. 124). The
R&R, Opinion, and ...