Ayers v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, Mortgage et al
Filing
34
ORDER Denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (copy of order mailed to Ida Ayers) (LVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IDA AYERS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NUMBER: 10-12857
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
FLAGSTAR BANK, et al,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s second Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 21). Because Plaintiff includes new allegations in this motion, which Plaintiff calls
an amended complaint, the Court also construes it as a Motion to Amend.
On July 20, 2010, pro se Plaintiff Ida Ayers filed suit against seven Defendants,
including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). Plaintiff’s
claims center around the alleged wrongful foreclosure and auction of her home.
Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the property as a
legitimate foreclosure, and MSHDA, relying on these fraudulent misrepresentations,
purchased it.
On September 15, 2010, MSHDA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming that it was immune from suit and that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim against it. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 15, 2010, the Court
granted MSHDA’s motion. (Doc. 13).
On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider this dismissal,
1
and moved to amend her Complaint. The Court denied both motions because MSHDA
is a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity and the amendments were futile.
Plaintiff again asks the Court to reconsider the dismissal of MSHDA, and to allow
her to amend the Complaint. The Court declines to do so. Even liberally construed,
Plaintiff fails to state any new allegations or arguments which change the outcome of
the Court’s prior rulings. Moreover, a motion for reconsideration that presents "the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication," will
not be granted. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). The Court finds no reason to reconsider its
finding that MSHDA is a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity. See Morris v.
Dehaan, 944 F.2d 905 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding district court properly dismissed claims
against MSHDA based on 11th Amendment immunity).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 25, 2011
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Ida Ayers by electronic means or U.S. Mail
on May 25, 2011.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk
2
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?