Hubbard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al
ORDER Denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SHERMAN M. HUBBARD,
Case No. 16-cv-11455
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. et al,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On April 22, 2017, Plaintiff Sherman Hubbard, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
naming Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank as Defendants.
ECF No. 1. All pretrial matters were referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 3.
On December 12, 2016, Defendants filed two motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 27, 28.
On March 16, 2017, Judge Morris issued a report recommending that the motions be granted and
the complaint dismissed. ECF No. 41. On March 28, 2017, Hubbard filed a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint. ECF No. 41. He also filed objections to Judge Morris’s report and
recommendation. ECF No. 42. On August 30, 2017, the Court issued an order overruling
Hubbard’s objections, adopting the report and recommendation, and dismissing Hubbard’s
complaint. ECF No. 50.
Now, Hubbard has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order of dismissal.
ECF No. 52. In the motion, Hubbard quotes several sections from his complaint and argues,
That it [sic] clear that no existing banking institution of any kind now in existence
owns the original Hubbard mortgage nor does any such institution have standing
to foreclose or otherwise have any proceeding against Plaintiff in any respect and
to the extent they have tried, they are acting fraudulently causing Plaintiff
Mot Recon. at 2, ECF No. 52.
Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), a party can file a motion for
reconsideration of a previous order, but must do so within fourteen days. A motion for
reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows: “(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect
misled the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.” Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34
(E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is “obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. at 734 (citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices,
Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[T]he 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. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). See also Bowens v. Terris,
No. 2:15-CV-10203, 2015 WL 3441531, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2015).
Hubbard’s complaint was dismissed because he did not specifically allege facts sufficient
to establish a claim for fraud and because the TARP and HAMP programs did not create a
private cause of action. In other words, Hubbard’s complaint was dismissed because he had not
alleged a cognizable cause of action. Hubbard’s current contention that Nationwide Lending
Corporation (which originally provided the mortgage to him) is now out of business does nothing
to change that conclusion. Hubbard alleges in his own complaint (and proposed amended
complaint) that his mortgage was reassigned to Bank of America and then to Deutsche Bank.
Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1–3. There is no allegation or reason to believe that the assignment was
invalid. As such, it is not relevant whether Nationwide Lending Corporation is still in business or
not. Hubbard’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Hubbard’s motion for reconsideration, ECF
No. 52, is DENIED.
Dated: September 19, 2017
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on September 19, 2017.
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?