Gendjar et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al
ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration and finding as moot 13 Motion for Leave to File a Response. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DOUGLAS S. GENDJAR & SANDI L.
Case No. 11-14557
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR UNITED STATES
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A RESPONSE 
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration  and Defendants’
Motion for Leave to File a Response  to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(1) provides that:
A motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry
of the judgment or order.
In order to be timely, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration should have been filed
within 14 days of entry of the Court’s Order  Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The
Court’s Order  was entered on January 17, 2011. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 
was not filed until March 28, 2012–months after the case was closed. Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration  is, therefore, untimely.
The Court finds no reason to overlook Plaintiffs’ untimeliness. In fact, the Court notes
that Plaintiffs have shown a pattern of disregard for the Court rules, specifically with respect to
deadlines. See Show Cause Order .
In addition to being untimely, Plaintiffs’ have failed to set forth a substantive reason to
grant the Motion. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides that:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the 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. The movant must
not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other
persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
See Hansmann v. Fid. Invs. Institutional Servs. Co., 326 F.3d 760, 767 (6th Cir. 2003) (A
motion for reconsideration is granted only “if the movant demonstrates that the district court and
the parties have been misled by a palpable defect, and correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case”). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605, 624 (E.D.
Mich. 2001) (internal citations omitted). “The decision whether to grant reconsideration lies
largely within the discretion of the court.” Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d
1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Plaintiffs’ Motion is not only untimely; it fails to demonstrate a palpable defect in this
Court’s order. Plaintiffs would like this Court to allow the case to proceed simply because the
claims are difficult to prove. Plaintiffs have not identified any case law to support the argument
that a palpable defect exists because the case is difficult to prove. Plaintiffs’ Motion is woefully
inadequate. Because Plaintiffs have not shown a palpable defect, the correction of which would
result in a different disposition of the case, the Motion must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration  is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Response
 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: May 23, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record
on May 23, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
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?