Adams v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. et al

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Grace Ellis Adams. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GRACE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-14791
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC. and U.S. BANK,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
On or about September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants in
the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, raising claims associated with the
foreclosure of property in Rochester Hills, Michigan. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on or about September 30, 2011; and Defendants removed the lawsuit to this
Court based on diversity jurisdiction on October 31, 2011. On January 12, 2012, this
Court issued an opinion and order dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to
Defendants’ motion, striking Plaintiff’s “Amended Mass Joinder Complaint,” and
denying several motions filed by Plaintiff. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration.
Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan provides that a
motion for reconsideration only should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the
Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different

disposition of the case must result from a correction of such a palpable defect. E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1h)(3). A motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by
the Court shall not be granted. Id.
Plaintiff fails to set forth a palpable defect in the Court’s decision, much less one
that, if corrected, would result in a different disposition of the case. She points out what
she believes are two factual errors in the Court’s opinion and order (the reason U.S. Bank
postponed foreclosure of Plaintiff’s residence in 2008 and the impact of her bankruptcy
and civil filings on the foreclosure process); however neither fact weighs on the outcome.
Plaintiff further claims that the Court rendered a decision before all defendants were
served. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, however, named only Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. and U.S. Bank as defendants. To the extent Plaintiff named
other defendants in her “Amended Mass Joinder Complaint,” the Court struck that
attempted amendment as it was filed without leave of court and because the proposed
amendments would be futile.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Date: February 9, 2012
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Grace Ellis Adams
829 Langdon Court
Rochester Hills, MI 48037
Edward C. Cutlip, Jr., Esq.
Davidde A. Stella, Esq.

2