Tyson v. John R. Service Center, Inc.

          Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [149]

          JUDITH E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before 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.

         I. Background

         The 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.)

         Plaintiffs 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 taken.

         . 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. 111, 112.)

         . 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. 59.)

         . 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 No. 59.)

         In May 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.

         After 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 ...